Obama's Contradiction: The Iran-USA Escalation

In May, the Islamic Republic of Iran brokered a deal to transport 1200 kilograms (approximately half) of its enriched Uranium fuel for storage in Turkey--a step to deter ongoing threats of new economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. The agreement, facilitated by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, requires the Turkish government to provide fuel to power a research reactor in Tehran.

The deal echoes a failed UN-backed deal, which called for Iran's low-enriched uranium to be transported to Russia and France for processing. It has been paralyzed for months--primarily due to Iran's lack of trust that reactor-grade fuel will be returned. The Islamic Republic demanded that the transaction occur on Iranian soil, at the same time. Western powers did not find this a valid request.

Despite the apparent de-escalation of Iran's nuclear aspirations, the United States and other Security Council members are not backing down from sanctions. The Iranian government does not plan to cease it's uranium enrichment, though it has vowed to both the international community and its own citizens that intentions are peaceful and civilian.

As we saw in last summer's botched election and ruthless crackdown on peaceful protestors, however, this theocratic regime is not a particularly honest or reliable authority.

That is not to say an escalation of diplomatic conflict is warranted. Especially if the outcome could be full-fledged war. Indeed, the position of President Barack Obama is highly questionable.

On April 20, the White House sent a letter to President Lula da Silva encouraging the deal, saying: "For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile." The President did not say it would mean the end of proposed sanctions, but stressed that this deal would send a powerful message to the international community, saying "I would urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to 'escrow' its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being produced."

Shortly after President Obama's wishes were granted, the sanctions were approved by a unanimous Security Council vote. What does this mean and what are the implications?

The sanctions are intended to target the military leadership of Iran as well as the institutions responsible for uranium enrichment--isolating state-controlled banks from the global financial system and blacklisting petroleum companies. Whether or not the strategy will succeed is unknown. The Bill Clinton sanctions on Iraq brought about the crippling of the Iraqi economy, and is oft-cited as an underlying cause of the mass looting and poverty-induced crime that so destabilized the country post-invasion. The Iran sanctions appear to be more focused on leadership, but there is no telling what effect they might have, or if they will be expanded.

Though the mainstream media will not attempt to analyze the contradictory behavior of the reformer President, it is vital that we ask why he voiced such support for the Turkey-Brazil deal in the first place? Why would this success not be praised? It is a clear improvement from the recent past, but is met with further escalation.

Perhaps it is an issue of American hegemony--that the USA was not a part of the negotiations delegitimizes the agreement for many in the Washington establishment. If other states are able to accomplish diplomatic goals that Americans are not, does this undermine USA's position as the sole super-power? Is peace truly the priority of this escalation?

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 3

Here is the final part of a Pakistani perspective. Regardless of how you believe, this is a thoughtful essay and important to think about.

Judgement Day for the Pure, Part III
by G, the Legend
The US of A: Can they be trusted?

o Everyone in the Muslim / Arab / Developing world loves to bash America. For most countries its enough that they’re rich, we’re poor, and they seem so much happier than us and that just can’t be fair at all. With Muslims and Islam in the mix, the picture gets murkier. Their policies to the Arab world vis a vis their unflinching support for Israel and turning a blind eye to all atrocities committed against Palestinians has been a gaping, open wound to all Muslims around the world. The fact that the US has become almost incapable of changing its tone and taking an objective view of ground realities has become inexcusable; the policy of choosing who to negotiate with is over, as organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah now have strong local, democratic support, largely due to the success of successive Israeli military campaigns in creating alienation, oppression and hatred amongst the people they rule over. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as a response to the aggression of a repressive, inhuman military dictator in Iraq who was himself a recipient of US funding and support against Iran, just crystallizes the West’s image in the Muslim world as a power with double standards and worthless promises. The trust deficit of the US from a Muslim standpoint is too great; we cannot simply take their word for it that they won’t leave us high and dry the next time they want to sell things to India, but I doubt our political leaders have the stature or vision to stand up for Pakistani interests.

o The current problem of Talibanization in Pakistan has its roots in the oft repeated saga of American cold war support of the Afghan Mujahideen. While it’s true and we did fight the American’s war for them, the reality is that we did so on extremely favorable terms of payment and by means left entirely up to our own devising. The army received huge payments during the entire Soviet occupation, and the method of adapting an ideology to prey on the marginalized, poor, downtrodden and persecuted is a creation of Pakistani operational needs. This was not the only way to win that war, but we chose it wholeheartedly and kept at it many, many years after the war ended. The Americans are notoriously shortsighted, and the patchwork of American military bases and precarious diplomatic ties in every region shows just how much vision (or lack thereof) they exercise in conflict zones. However, our problems at this juncture, the growing polarization between rural and urban areas, the spread of jihadist, sectarian and extremist organizations across the country, and the lack of any social discourse on a contrary national ideology to fundamentalism, are entirely of our own making.

We need to accept that whatever the US does, its job has always been to supports its people’s global interests, not holding our hand and nursing us out of sickness; as a sovereign nation ourselves, if anyone we have been remiss in putting the priorities of Pakistan above the requirements of other countries, and it is our leaders who are to blame. It is us, the privileged, English speaking, big spending elite that has let this country down by being uncaring, un-patriotic spectators of a grand Tamasha. We are complicit in the looting of our national resources over the last 60 years because not once have we exerted influence or tried to be heard, mainly because we have benefited quite well from the injustice. The economics of neglect and apathy has been exceptionally generous to the rich in Pakistan, and that is why we find ourselves here today; in 4 provinces, those with means see a different, modern, progressive Pakistan, while the majority of our countrymen’s lives are so miserable that they can only see the world of salvation or death. We failed them by not demanding that they be fed, clothed and educated as is their right, we never gave them a chance to escape the dark specter of poverty as it snatched away children, tore apart families, shot up neighborhoods and reduced hundreds of thousands to starvation. These are the sins we pay for today, so please Pakistanis, don’t simply blame America. If you need someone to hate, look in the mirror. We have slipped and fallen, our halo is gone, our face is wrinkled and our skin is decaying; we can no longer cling to the names of Iqbal and Jinnah like talismans, hoping their spirit will guide us through the dark. We need to act now to save Pakistan from becoming a polarized, fractious, ethnic hodge-podge of a country, where our cities have curfews and rampant violence, and our villages grow terror and hatred rather than wheat and maize. If we are to live and prosper, we must act now; else we must recognize that tomorrow may never be the same again.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 2

Judgement Day for the Pure, PART II
by G, the Legend

Politics: The security situation of the country is better known to insiders, this is simply a summary of speculation and analysis available in the world media and on your local TV channels. The real inside story may yet be far too real for us to handle. This is probably why most elected leaders have chosen this critical time to remain silent and meditate on what to buy with their recently increases salaries.

o It is an indictment of our political leaders that the passing of the Peace Accord / Surrender Agreement in Swat was done with a unanimous vote and without disagreement, with almost all major political parties on board. To give credit where it’s due, the only party that actually staged a walkout and has been on the case of this peace deal from the very beginning has been the MQM. This is while the ANP continues to extol the virtues of ‘peacemaking’ in spectacularly shortsighted fashion, while the PPP dishes out its daily dose of inane, nonsensical statements and political gaffes. The PML-N has done absolutely nothing to oppose this deal, and despite riding back to power on the coattails of the ‘people’, it seems content to wait around in the Punjab till this whole thing blows over. Maybe they’re planning to make Lahore the capital once the Taliban take over Islamabad, who knows; for now, I think its about time for Nawaz Sharif to make use of the immense political leverage he can gain in the West by coming out against the militants. Some recent anti-Taliban statements suggest that he may be positioning himself to the US as a better qualified, better supported and more legitimate leader for the country. Whether this plan works or not depends entirely on how bad Zardari lets things get, and how fast.

o What does Zardari really want? When I discussed the military’s thought process above, it was under the assumption that the PPP government was for a resolution of the Swat situation under peaceful means. Whether this is true or not is also another aspect up for debate. The PPP historically went into Karachi, its own city, with all guns blazing to cleanse it from the ethnic violence of the 90s, yet now it balks at the concept of establishing the writ of the government and prioritizing national security over shortsighted ‘peace’. Maybe I’m just cynical, but more talking and less shooting just doesn’t strike me as their administrative style. I guess the real question is who is really in charge? Are Zardari’s hands tied by the military, is he calling the shots or are both colluding to keep the Americans spinning? We won’t know for many years till its all over, and I can’t speculate any more based on my information than I already have; but if one thing is for certain, inaction, incompetence and insincerity on behalf of the incumbent government is a great part of why we are here today.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. I

Hey all, not sure sure if you've been following the situation in Pakistan (it's the big country sharing borders with Afghanistan, India, and Iran), but since the civilian government took power not long ago, instability has been on the rise. Taliban militants have gotten close to the capital, and this is worrisome not only to the global community, but to the people of Pakistan. Remember that this is a country with a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance. I will dedicate the next three entries to addressing this issue. Here is the first part of an essay by a friend of a friend:

Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend

As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.

The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:

Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:

* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:

o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’

As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:

*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)

This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:

* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR

o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR

o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.

No Takers? Well, I was on C-SPAN

Since there doesn't seem to be much interest in the questions posed in my previous post, I suppose I will move on, but I thought I'd show you my little spot on CSPAN from last week (below).  You see, this  important Ambassador came to Denison (my school), and spoke about the recent 6-party talks with North Korea (Christopher Hill--the leading diplomat to the Republic of Korea).  He said that much progress has been made--just this month, the North Koreans have agreed to replace the nuclear seals and continue the dismantling of their nuclear facilities.  

His talk gave me more optimism in our diplomatic skills--Hill spoke not as a politician, but as someone who has invested himself into the success of these talks.  To further this idea, I asked his what it meant to be and "enemy" of this country.  He begins his answer with "I think I know what you're getting at"--and I believe that was his way of acknowledging the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric that does not seem to help diplomatic efforts.

My hope was to get a little conversation started on the topic of enemies and evil before showing you the video... but perhaps Hill's response to my question will spark some critical thinking.  I'm working on cutting the clip onto YouTube, but for now you can see it here... just skip to the 33:34 timecode, and ignore my stuttering.

The Choice

I'm going to let y'all in on a little secret of mine; it's the thing that keeps me going ... keeps me positive ... but above all, keeps me working to, for lack of better cliché, make a difference. It is the idea that no matter how messed up things are, many things have been improving. It's the essential belief that society makes a lot of mistakes, but that people learn and evolve in their sense of humanity.

Take, for instance, the idea that just less than fifty years ago segregation was an accepted aspect of American society. For those individuals who were born after that era, the idea of having a 'black' drinking fountain and a 'white' drinking fountain is absolutely inconceivable. It was just 88 years ago that women were granted the right to vote in this country, and only 55 years before that, people legally owned slaves. Your great or at least great great grandparents lived through that. Our social evolution has seen us change from individuals who kill for gain, to ones who view the act of murder with utter disdain; though I should point out that we still have a ways to go. We continue to kill as punishment for killing—as we justify killing in the ‘just’ wars; perhaps the distinction between people and governments ought to be made in this respect.

Of course I am generalizing to an extent. Many societies--primitive, advanced, and industrialized—have displayed desires to be more humane and tolerant communities, but the social advances of developed nations in the 21st Century are astronomical in comparison to the ways of yesteryear. To use the obvious examples: a black man may be President this year, and a woman may be Vice President. There will be a woman President, and soon there will be a gay President of the United States. And with the revolutionary development of the Internet, people everywhere are connecting and learning about each other and their plights like never before in all known history. The Internet will continue to grow, the world will continue to shrink, and tolerance will spread faster than we are able to conceptualize.

However, we must not constrain ourselves to the promises of tomorrow. A large part of the world does not have the wealth and prosperity that citizens of developed nations have been blessed with. Will Africa ever be able to catch up with the rest of the world? Or will there forever be a continent of suffering masses? Even more important are the negative implications that have come along with our advanced technology--the prime one being the ability to split the atom.

The world is now in a position where one false move and a series of bad decisions will obliterate all that we know. This unfathomable potential for doom is the one thing that could undo all of the progress humanity has made, and will prevent us from ever discovering what kind of people we could have become. Humanity will one day be faced with the choice: we will either continue the traditional route of aggression and nuclear politics, or we will realize that this struggle can be overcome. The day we realize that having enemies (and thereby making enemies) is no longer an acceptable or survivable threat, will be a great day.

How will the world change? What will the status of the traditional nation-states be? How will we fix broken government? Will world government become a reality?

It will likely take a true disaster for us to reach that point…

…but then again, humans have been known to be unpredictable buggers.