Arab League in Iraq, BRICS Summit in India and Kofi Annan in China: New Failures for Syria

Political diplomacy and democracy enlargement touches new boundaries with the Arab League, BRICS and UN Envoy Annan, all discussing about ‘Syria’ this week.

Recently, President Bashar al- Assad agreed to adopt the 6-point peace plan forwarded by UN -Arab League Envoy Annan. No doubt, it was an intelligent move, as the statement is not a UN resolution, it does not demand Assad’s departure and no immediate date has been mentioned when this plan should be implemented. One can witness history repeating itself when the US Senators start the chorus of arming the opposition in Syria and UN Humanitarian Chief Navi Pillay states that there is ample evidence to arrest Assad. The same happened in the case of Libya when ICC issued arrest warrants against Colonel Gadaffi while David Cockburn revealed that both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do not have evidence. No doubt, its not a conscientious choice to support Assad. But then again, we have to realise that at present, he is the one who is actually controlling Syria. If he goes away, who will take the responsibility that Libya does not shatter into a civil war.

Arab League Summit in Iraq

As far as the Arab Summit is concerned, its more of a long awaited opportunity for Baghdad to enter the limelight again. Unfortunately, only seven out of the 22 member states are attending the meeting. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have declined to join it. In fact, the Emir of Kuwait is the sole representative from Gulf countries to be present in Iraq. Sectarian issues are predominant here. Grudges against Sunni Arab majority being dominated by the Shiite government is unacceptable to Qatar. Nothing is more evident than the fact that Iraq’s PM Nouri al-Maliki has a lot of struggle to go through. No doubt, just like the ‘Friends of Syria‘ conference that took place in Tunisia last February, this Arab Summit is also not going to yield any specific results. Syria is no longer a part of Arab league and its Foreign Ministry is not going to accept any decision marked in this conference.

BRICS Summit in New Delhi

Talking about BRICS and how all these countries should really kick off an enigmatic and prudent head start in Syria’s case, everything turns sarcastic immediately. This week, Yeshi, a Tibetian revolutionary set himself on fire in New Delhi. Tibetans have been protesting against China’s embark to India as police officials jail them in. So, on one hand, India is trying to play the role of a saint by talking the measures that should be taken to ease of the burden of Syrian opposition rebels. But look whats happening inside New Delhi itself? Its neither retributive nor restorative justice being imparted to Tibetans.

Kofi Annan in China

Turning to UN envoy Kofi Annan, it seems, quite superficially that here comes a man who can make transparent changes. This week, he was in Beijing to talk with Chinese PM Wen Jiabao. Well, China agreed to support the peace plan but is not very clear whether it means complete commitment till the very end or just a casual backing of the peace plan. Annan also visited Russia and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raise the same noble concerns. Sadly, diplomacy does not work by paying high profile visits. It concerns me why Vladimir Puntin and Kofi Annan did not meet and if they did, why no press conference has been launched for it. Russia indeed is a crafty situation. Well, Russia might be taking slow cautious steps just as Syria did in recognizing Russian Federation after the collapse of USSR.

Eventually, Syria is not Somalia where anarchy persists and the private sector adopts careful and meticulous moves to sustain the economy. The Syrian economy, or perhaps more, the common everyday livelihood of a Syrian has been effected by the US and EU imposed sanctions. Leaving the economy aside, one after another, all the foreign moves like Arab League Summit, the BRICS Summit and even Kofi Annan’s visit would not reap any results and are completely helpless. Well, perhaps this is exactly the right time to ask oneself, anyways ‘what exactly is the result we are searching for’.

Book Review Contemporary Syria: ‘Liberalisation between cold war and cold peace’

‘Contemporary Syria-liberalization between cold war and cold peace’ is a collection of essays from a conference on Economic and Political Change in Syria held in May 1993 at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London. Eberhard Kienle, a lecturer in Middle Eastern Politics at SOAS had compiled this book. He has also included a brief preface by Patrick Seale which questions the relationship between economic and political liberalisation in Syria during the regime of Hafez al- Assad.

With nine scholarly papers from the speakers at the conference, ‘Contemporary Syria‘ sometimes turns repetitive as every scholar starts with the same fundamental facts. Slowly, the pace is picked, other countries like US,Israel, Russia and Lebanon are bought into debate, economic analysis is done and finally, the paper tends to be different. Over and over again, it is declared that Hafez saw no connection between economic and popular freedoms, encouragement for private sector and progress towards democracy and between increasing cordial relations with US and power sharing along with respect for human rights.

The author could have used a better title for the book because the term ‘Liberalization between cold war and cold peace’ does not make immediate sense. Also, there is very limited, if any, mention of cold war and its effect on Syria in any of the included papers. Syria is exposed as a state where ‘liberalisation‘ is eclipsed by ‘liberation’ from adverse effects of forces of imperialism and Zionism.

Economic liberalization in Syria took place in two distinct parts. Intifah is used as an Arab currency term for defining this process but it was later abandoned after it matched with Sadat’s strategies.

The first process started soon after Hafez took power from 16th November 1970. The private sector started entering into manufacturing and tourism. It also gained importance especially after October War of 1973 as the scope of intifah towards private sector and Western companied opened.  This phase involved political restructuring such as establishment of parliament in 1971 and adoption of a new constitution in 1973. National Progressive Front involving Ba’ath parties, Arab Socialist Union, Syrian Communist Parties, Organisation of Socialist Unionists, was established in 1972.

Sarcastically,  ‘popular democracy’ was the code word where Syrian people had to consent to authoritarian rule which served their interests.

The need for second intifah began after 1978 when wages and agricultural procurement prices were affected by inflation, corruption and nepotism. Intervention in Lebanon was unpopular, several Alawis were assassinated between 1979-1982 and finally, the Hama Massacre of 1982. Even the Commercial bank of Syria had declined to provide private sector with foreign exchange needed for imports. In return, black markets and currency smuggling grew. The government imposed the Law no. 24 of 1986 against smuggling of currency. It was only later in 1991, the Law Number 10. was implemented that really opened spaces for private sector investments.

The business class in Syria is politically powerless and fragmented into ‘entrepreneurial class’, ‘business community’, ‘new class’ and ‘bureaucratic bourgeoisie’.  The book explains how Syria has turned into a ‘Military and Merchant Dictatorship.‘ The manner in which power drifted into the hands of military after 1970s revamped the life of these geographically peripheral, socially ascending and ethnically minority sectors of the society.

Syria’s Hafez Assad has also called himself the ‘Gorbachev‘ of Middle East or perhaps better than him. He states that ‘perestroika’ started in the world not in late 1990s but right when Assad started his ‘Corrective Movement’ in 1970s.

One can also learn the the symptom of ‘disunity‘ ,’ lack of leadership’ and ‘scattered organisational tendencies‘ in the Syrian opposition right now is a definite trait of their past. The National Alliance for the liberation of Syria, established after the Hama event, consisted of Muslim Brotherhood and secular parties.  Most of the opposition parties turned into rivals after dealing with issues like ‘how the opposition should be led’ and ‘concrete attack actions’ that should be adopted.

Taking advantage of ‘Divide and Rule Policy,‘ Hafez implemented an intelligent strategy in Lebanon leading to the signing of ‘Mutual Defence Pact’ in September 1991. This pact gave permission to Syrian military presence in Lebanon. In return, the Law No. 10 of 1991 gave Lebanese entrepreneurs economic assets and significant leverage in Syria.

The hardline on Israel was dependent on Eastern Europe and Republic of Commonwealth of Independent States for economic assistance and advice. The combination of intransigence towards Israel, internal economic recovery and continued ties to former Eastern bloc enabled the coalition for senior military and security officials, Ba’ath Party and central administrative officials and managers of public sector enterprises to retain a predominant position within Syria’s politics. Therefore, no matter how much the private sector develops, it would never be able to cause a political liberalisation in Syria.

In a nutshell, the book gives a descriptive and in-depth insight into Syria’s political and economical scenario. It carries a detailed history of Assad regime which makes it comparatively easier to understand even Bashar al- Assad and his country’s political/economic reality.

Kofi Annan’s peace plan’s weakness inspite of Russia and China’s support

On 20th March, Russia stated that it was ready to support France’s presidential statement to UN, procuring Kofi Annan’s peace plan. Suddenly, both Russia and China who had shielded Syria by vetoing against 2 UN resolutions, have changed their alignment.

On the other hand, Kofi Annan who met Assad last month could not create immediate results. In fact, the terms and conditions of his diplomatic talk with Assad have not been made public. Well, I wonder if they would have anyways received more importance than the sudden email leads of Assad and his cosmopolitan wife. These emails storming the news media, perhaps have become a new face of ‘information propaganda war’.

Without meticulous analysis, a common man watching Syrian news is revealed that Assad has been getting guidance from Iran and his father-in-law in London to squash the rebels. Similar to it was the leaked Barbara Walter’s interview preparation when Assad was shown to learn how to give an interview infront of the American public.

Kofi Annan’s peace plan

Turning back to Kofi Annan’s peace plan, it includes 6 points like, both the sides should end violence, daily pauses for humanitarian assistance, release of political prisoners and access to journalists, freedom of assembly for protest and above all, the Syrian government and opposition should work in good faith. Well, the peace plan is a statement and not a resolution that can be legally binded. It portrays nothing but another feeble attempt from the side of West to conquer the Middle East.

‘Different dance for China and Russia’

What disturbs more is that both China and Russia are changing sides. This swift change was perhaps visible from the very time Moscow stated that it would not be granting asylum to Assad. Well, Russia cares for Tartus, its military and its arms trade. It was surprising that it was Tunisia’s president Moncef Marzouki who stated asylum for Assad, not just once but three times, eventually declining his offer. As far as China is concerned, it is anyways known for its ‘transactional diplomacy‘ which involves globe trotting all over the world with a fat checkbook in hand. Both Russia and China are quasi allies, after all, they both were communist blocs, hungry to export their revolutions, all around the world. Their security dilemma and hatred for the West has bought them closer, but how will this relationship affect Syria?

Lessons from Libya, Egypt and Tunisia

On the other hand, perhaps no one is learning from Libya. The NATO unilateralism in Libya has segmented the country between demands of federalism rising amid Benghazi and Tripoli. The Interim government has yet not pursued the war crimes. The Truth and Reconciliation commission is a farce, nothing else. Though, all TRCs have their own problems.

Like the one in South Africa only heard the grievances of 20,000 victims in the anti-aparthied struggle while others were simply forgotten. At the same time, even UN is not forcing these commissions to investigate human rights abuses.

While Egypt is now marching towards Presidential elections and Muslim Brotherhood has finally stated that they would have their own nominee, also. But the government is still ruled by the military and the parliament is just a ceremonial institution. This has made is very difficult for Egypt to obtain a $3.2 billion loan from the IMF.

Turning to Tunisia, the country seems to follow the Turkish model of democracy and rule of law, as it celebrated its Independence day from France in 1956 on 20th March. Tunisian presidents and foreign ministers are engrossed in talking about Libya, setting firms in Italy, petrol prices and welcoming Turkey’s President.

‘Syria’s revolution spills’

Also, Syria’s turmoil will not be limited to its own geopolitics. Lebanon, right now, who played the role of silent supporter for Syria, is facing the consequences. The shells fired in Syria has already started hitting the Lebanese border village of al-Qaa, where severally Syrian refugees are currently hiding. Similarly, the Libyan revolution did spill to Mali while the Egyptian to Sudan. Therefore, with the kind of geopolitical importance that Syria has, the chess board might utterly change, if its revolution gets exported.

‘Turkey and Syria: Is a military confrontation near?’

Meanwhile, in a very discreet manner, Turkey has started establishing a buffer zone at the Syrian side. 500 soldiers have already arrived to look over the current scenario and the migration of refugees. Well, this entire plan, without the knowledge or prior consent of the Damascus regime can lead to military confrontation if Turkey does not play the right cards. The entire situation puts Turkey in a very unconformable situation because it has to also seal its border from the influx of Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) along with the Syrian refugees. Right from last year August, Turkey has been conducting air strikes against the Kurdish camps in Iraq. Few leaked reports have stated that Syrian regime employs Kurdish militia to maintain control over the northern regions- a reason well enough to anger the Turkish Armed Forces.

Russian Navy and Syria’s future?

Recently, there has also been another rumour that a Russian navy has landed a tanker in Syria on its Tartus port. It involves ‘anti-terrorism’ marines to further squash the rebels.  Well, the Damascus regime has currently negated the rumour. Nevertheless, just like the ‘Friends of Syria’ meeting in Tunisia last month, the Kofi Annan Peace Plan seems to fall flat. With Damascus regime being tight lipped, its even difficult to predict the consequences. The May elections predicted by Bashar al Assad would be the next important issue to look at.

Book Review: Seeking Mandela-Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians

Shimon Peres, after meeting Mandela in 1993 wrote, ‘Two persecuted people, the black South Africans and the Jews, celebrate a new future.’
Starting with this arresting analogy, the book ‘Seeking Mandela- peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians’ tries to test if the ideology of ‘One Man, One Vote‘ can ever operate in Israel/Palestine Conflict.

This is the fourth co-authored book of the couple Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley. The writing is in-depth, flawless and portrayed in a very appealing manner. The authors give a political, psychological, emotional, physical and above all, spiritual peep into the daily lives of the people involved in the conflict. The book does not limit itself to just Israel, Palestine and South Africa but touches India, Latin America, United States European countries, while detailing its various case studies.

The authors believe that Israel Palestine conflict is further worsening as both sides are involved in moralising, theologising, medicalising and personalising the conflict. They also expose other issues including Palestinians being politically seduced to act as traitors, existence of refuseniks from Israeli military who disobey to follow the mandatory conscription in the occupied territories. The question if Hamas and Fatah adopt ‘civil disobedience’ and ‘non-violence’ as their key mantras like Mahatma Gandhi did in India’s freedom struggle is also raised. But the real narrative and interview pieces of the victims reveals the abysmal reality, since the Israel-Palestine conflict has already passed that point.

As both South Africa and Israel are colonial settler societies, the book states that the South African model of post conflict reconciliation may inspire revision of certain workable policies. The Truth Commission and its flaws are heavily criticised, like the absence of academics or members of anti-ANC party in the 17 member body.

It is also revealed that increased polarisation with Israel/Palestine could spill over into inter-group relations in South Africa, especially between the Muslim Judicial Council And Jewish Board of Deputees. Though, both South Africa and Israel have fostered relationships because of the growing urge in SA politicians to teach peaceful conflict resolution techniques and hosting of international conferences in post-apartheid state.
A brief history of South Africa is also included in the book which allows the reader to develop a relationship with the country, further understanding its foundations. But is just acts as a tool intelligently used by the authors to differentiate South Africa from Israel.

Both these countries are also different in terms of economic power balance. Israeli economy can function without Palestinian labour but the same was not true in South Africa. Black population was necessary, giving rise to migration from the Bantustans.  Over and over, the authors state that Israel/Palestine conflict would never end till a third party intervention takes place. Both Adam and Moodely have done a brilliant job by stating the views of well know historians, journalists, academics, political leaders, army generals and even innocent civilians. Every page is educating though eventually, the entire hypothesis falls flat when they both suggest that there’s no need to seek Palestinian Mandela as his presence would not solve the issue.

Why did the US soldier kill 16 Afghans?

On 12th March, Jon Snow wrote a blog on ‘The remoteness of modern war‘ where he discusses the war in Afghanistan.

He states, ‘It is when a soldier goes berserk and kills 16 Afghans, nine of them children, or a when direct hit steals six British lives from an “impregnable” armoured vehicle, that war lurches back into awareness.’

The rift in US-Afghanistan relationship started mushrooming after the Quran burning incident by NATO. Soviet style rallies and protests carried on for a week, demanding apology and eradication of the soldiers. Unlike his stand in Libya after NATO bombed civilian tanks, President Obama did apologise. It does not matter for the Pathans/ Pasthuns anymore because their radical indifference and nonchalance has been catalysed by stupendous momentum from such enraging acts of the west. Sectarian violence and civil war, and above all, the usage of Afghanistan to devastate Al-Qaeda soon after the country was breaking out from USSR’s clutches, leaves an indelible memory of pain. An opprobrium.

But the recent, almost paroxysm of epilepsy in which a US soldier killed 16 Afghans, nine out of whom where children, speaks another story.

This incident did not happen in response to answering back the ‘barbaric’ Afghans after their showed the mettle to protest against NATO. Rather, it goes back to the very moment the respective US Soldier was forced into mandatory conscription service. An average cosmopolitan American, patriotic and not just loyal to his American identity, took the risk. Life in Afghanistan is difficult, and different from life in a colonised country. This soldier knows nothing of Shia-Sunni strife, Pathans and their Taliban links, Al-qaeda and its locations, customary laws, culture and above all language. For him, Afghanistan is barbaric and he carries the burden of cleansing the blemish. Something similar to what Europeans believed when they captured Cape of Good Hope in South Africa in 1652. Benn Morris defends such attitude, stating ethnic cleansing is better than genocide against yourself.

Now, armed with flawless hi-tech arms and ammunition, this US soldier, ignorant but brave, has been given the order to shoot anyone/anytime, if he feels danger. There is a difference here. He can shoot when he ‘feels’ danger rather than when he ‘faces’ it. Tightly grouped in his units, he shares loyalty to other soldiers, their safety and perceptions. War becomes the pornography of violence for him. Just like teenagers play with fast, animated war games, his deployment gives him the same adrenaline rush. No one questions him. No one orders him. The Afghans are anyways ‘illiterate‘, ‘poor‘ and ‘meaningless‘ creatures for him. Life becomes abstract and so does its values and principles. That US soldier, initially did not know that he would cause deaths of several innocent civilians. He also did not know that one day, he will reach to a point when it wont matter to him. One day, one of his own soldiers would die after being killed by Pathans/Taliban. Second day, perhaps the IED would explode exactly where he stood, saving him in the nick of time. Blood, vomit, alcohol will be all he sees. And slowly life and death, would prove unnecessary to care about.

When one reads newspapers, one knows about the figures involved in such a mad spree. How many died and who killed whom? But it is never publicly mentioned about the psychological condition of the soldiers. We will be shocked to know how many of them suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. The life they would live after they are sent back to US would not only change them, but also their relation with their country. Many veterans and retired soldiers find it hard to be patriotic after they witness how diplomacy actually functions.

Modern warfare and cold peace are still struggling to find answers to such a phenomenon. Perhaps, one day, we might have one.

Sharia Law and democratisation of Islam by Said Ferjani

In spite of the fact that ‘Sharia Law’ is not known by many of us, it somehow exudes unknown fear and abstract ambiguity. The law in itself is so technical and in-depth that even those who follow political Islamic news would find it quite difficult to decipher.

To erase this ignorance, Said Ferjani, from Ennada Party of Tunisia spoke about ‘Shariah Law and Democratization by Islam’

 Ferjani stated that the concept of democracy had initially evolved in Athens. Though, he did mention that every religion does follow certain principles of democracy, here and there. But it was not strictly practised as an ideology in Islam. Islam needs to make democracy more systematic.

Explaining on how Islam would direct a flawless system of governance, Ferjani mentioned three main pillars of Sharia Law. He narrated these below mentioned verses (translated in English) from Quran which further support his ideology.

1. Children of Adam have been honoured and diginified. They are all human beings. Every human is a value in himself. Its necessary to cherish humanity. So, Sharia law gives every human being the preference and hence, no injustice would be done to him.
2. God has created no particular order that should be followed to worship him. But in order to have the religious worship accepted, men have devised their own ways. Hence, the Sharia law gives importance to knowledge and freedom. These are the most important aspects needed to actually worship God. This is because God does not want people to worship him. He has his own angels. But without knowledge and freedom, nothing matters and even the most served thing would have no value.
3. The most beloved people amongst us are those who benefit other people and work for others. The great must always help the poor. Hence, people who are crooked are the enemies of Sharia itself.

As Sharia Law follows these principles it can never go wrong in governing its own people.

Book Review: ‘Mirror of the Arab world: Lebanon in Conflict’ by Sandra Mackey

‘Mirror of the Arab world: Lebanon in Conflict’ starts on an acquisitive role of cruising into the labyrinth of Arab world by Sandra Mackey. The author has earlier written books on the Saudis, the Iranians and Iraq- the legacy of Saddam Hussein.

Mackey, an award winning veteran journalist believes that ‘It was never religion but language that paved way for the Arab world.‘ She supports her argument with the extinction of Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians who in spite of being resilient, could not master the art of language. The book gives a simple, easy-to-read analysis of the difference between Shia and Sunnis, along with the historical background of Druzes and Maronite Christians. She calls Maronites as the ‘mountain people’ while Muslims inhabited the coastal plains.

The author does not explain fundamental facts that Pope Urban II started the First Crusade and how Jerusalem was captured in 1099. But slowly she manages to establish a faint connection between the last Crusaders and Maronites towards Western Catholicism, without delving into historic details.

The book exposes an animated and behind-the-doors policy that took place at the Paris Conference convened at Versailles on January 18, 1919 to end the First world war. British PM David Lloyd George and French PM Georges Clemenceau are shown to jettison Woodrow Wilson’s ideas in order to pursue their respective interests in Middle East. Slowly the September 1920 launching of Great Lebanon is discussed along with the National Pact of 1943 that took place between Maronite President Bishara Khouri and Sunni PM Riad Solh. The book acknowledged that Lebanon got her independence from France in 1943 while other historical databases claim it to be 1941.

Mackey tries to draw an analogy between ‘Zaims‘, those who stood for public office and ‘Zuamas‘ who had government contracts position in the bureaucracy. With more prominence given to Zuamas, the author somehow overshadows the ‘Zaims’ and hence, the reader is not able to create his/her own understanding. This kind of fallacy can also be noticed at the beginning of every chapter where Mackey tries to connect Lebanon with Palestine, Bahrain, Iraq or Saudi Arabia just to make her narrative look like a entire mirror of the Arab world. This attempt fails as it obstructs the reader when he/she is trying to grasp Lebanon’s politics in a flow.

In the chapter ‘Palestinians- Victims and Villains‘, Mackey explains how ‘Al Baqaa’ in Hebron, West Bank, is the largest Jordanian concentration of Palestinians. She believes ‘Arabs have also oppressed Palestinians in their own government’s. Then follows an entire history of Romans possessing Palestine in 63 BC with Jews rising against Romans in 70 AD and then how the Jews were scattered in the diaspora by 135 AD. Eventually, the book targets the ‘Black September’ of 1970 and states that No Arab ruler helped the Palestinians. Though, other historical databases mention that Hafez Assad helped for a month but had to retreat due to Jordanian Army.

In the chapter ‘Woe be to the State‘, Mackey describes Lebanon as the ‘Jewel of the levant’. She narrates how in 1970, New president Suleiman Franjieh was considered the direct descendant of the Crusader. The emergence of Phalange (militia of Maronite warlords) and Zghortan military men is discussed in great detail. The Lebanese National Movement that includes Kamal Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party (Druze), Syrian National Party (Greek Orthodox and Sunnis), Amal (Shia) and Secular Ba’ath Socialist Party (Iraq and Syria) is explained in an interesting manner.

The author talks about the Green Line that divided Muslim west Beirut with the Christian East. She also exposes how Syria played the devil’s advocate by first defending Maronites so that an attack by Israel can be dodged but later switched towards Muslims. Though the book fails to give in-depth information about the Taif Accords that terminated the civil war in Lebanon and why Lebanon citizens did not respect it.

In the end, either Mackey looses the enthusiasm to narrate Lebanon’s history or got confused in the labyrinth herself. The last two chapters ‘A tale of four countries’ and ‘Islam as Politics’ are monotonous and repetitive. Even though this book was written in 2008, Mackey fails to give well established narrative of Hezbollah and especially, Hassan Nasrallah.Not much is discussed about Rafik Hariri and how Israel launched military campaign in 2006 against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Overall, the book oscillates from being superficial to in-depth. In 266 pages, it tends to be a substantive analysis of Lebanon, especially for those who had less or no idea about the country from before.

Israel’s Nuclear Power: A graver issue than Iran’s nuclear potential

As Israeli ‘Agent 83’ hogs for a million dollar applause after predicting the intricate details of Iranian nuclear bomb, it seems quite reasonable to smirk at the imbalance in Middle Eastern politics. While Iran is being criticized by IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano for not being transparent enough about its nuclear programme, no one is questioning Israel for its ‘Policy of Nuclear ambiguity’. Right from 1948, this nuclear opacity, that has been intelligently social engineered by Israel. It provides political investments, existential deterrence benefits, immunity and monetary advantages to Israel to secure more modernised nuclear arsenals.

‘If Arabs have oil, we have the matches.’

When Mordechai Vanunu, a technician who worked at the Dimona Nuclear Facility disclosed the details of Israel’s nuclear capacity on 5th October 1986 to London Sunday Times, he mentioned that at that particular time, Israel already had 200 bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, Jericho warheads, neutron bombs and boosted devices. Over the past years, Israel has developed low yield Neutron bombs which would destroy troops with minimal destruction caused to nearby property. They also have ‘tiny-nukes’ and ‘micro-nukes’ for attacking point targets. Their sea launch capability is secured through submarine launched nuclear missiles which operate in 350 km range. Oman, with its past record of unofficial relationship with Israel is the perfect option for carrying out second strikes of ‘Nuclear missile capable submarines‘ against Iran. Also, the 1994 Accord with Jordan grants limited Israeli military presence in the country. Taking into consideration Ariel Sharon, perhaps rightly said ‘If Arabs have oil, we have the matches.’

‘Nuclear power: Crusade Against Holocaust’

Israel’s struggle for nuclear capability started right from 1948. Ben Guiron believed that ‘Science would compensate Israel for what nature had denied‘, referring to the Holocaust and massive manslaughter of Jews by the Nazi regime. He was helped by his two close associates, namely, Professor Ernst Bergmann and Simon Peres. Professor Bergman founded the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and as a scientific advisor, had close relations with Francis Perrin, who himself was a member of French Atomic Energy Commission. Israel would gather French support in terms of nuclear reactors and repossessing plant. Simon Peres played an integral role in strengthening the French-Israeli Nuclear deal as the young director General of Ministry of Defense. This deal had initiated even before the 1956 Suez Canal campaign started. In fact, it was secretly signed on 3rd October 1957.

‘Strengthening of the French Connection’

Well both, Israel and France had their own selfish reasons for developing their embryonic relationship. The nuclear research capability to France had been limited after Second World War. It found itself behind US, USSR, UK and even Canada. When President Nasser of Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, Ben Gurion got worried and ordered the development of nuclear and chemical weapons. Gurion had started growing skeptical of Czech-Egyptian arms agreement of 1955.  So, Israel needed a political/economic saviour and France readily became one. After all, France wanted to use Israel as its asset against its fight in Algeria. Though, in 1958, when French President de Gaulle came to power, he terminated the French participation in Israel’s nuclear empowerment.

After the sudden stoppage of French supply, Israel had to import Uranium oxide from Belgium. It utilised the West German Front Company for this purpose under the ‘Operation Plumbat‘. This covert operation undertaken by Mossad violated the Euratom control of nuclear materials. Norway, later, sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel in 1959.

‘Assasination of Kennedy: End of Questioning Israel’

It was on 23rd December 1960, under US pressure, when Ben Gurion was forced to reveal to the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) that 24 megawatt research reactor that it used was meant for peaceful purpose. It was perhaps the last time an official statement regarding Israel’s nuclear capability was made.

May 1961, President Kennedy had started threatening Israel for not being more transparent and that he would be sending US Scientists to Israel.  But his assassination proved to be the last honest attempt of US against Israel. President Johnson was pro-Zionist, had suffered bitter memories of the holocaust himself during the second world war and did not really care about Israel’s nuclear power. It was later in 1968 when the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty was formed with the co-sponsorship of US.

Initially, Israel was pressurized to sign up for NPT and only then it would receive Phantom aircraft from America. Later, this mandatory demand was wiped out. In return, on 11th March 1965, a cable was sent from the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington stating that PM Levi Eshkol has declared that ‘Israel would not the the first to introduce nuclear power in the Middle East’. This declaration has become like a mantra, repeated on and on by Israeli Prime Ministers, the latest being PM Netanyahu.

The secret meeting of Israeli PM Golda Meir with US president Nixon in 1969 further made sure that world politics obliterated the evidence of Israel’s nuclear power. In Middle East, it was Egypt that first initiated this process. When the David Camp Accords were signed on 17th September 1978, President Sadat never questioned Israel’s nuclear capability in those 13 days of negotiation.

Conclusion

The entire fallacy becomes evident when Israel can develop its nuclear power under ‘activist defense policy‘ but Iran can not. This political tendency supports the realists and their ravenousness for power rather than security or trade. Over the years, AIPAC has grown as strong as the loopholes in Israel’s nuclear ambiguity, hence, dodging Israel away from sanctions, isolation or political containment.

Also, it is unfair that spy satellites are being used to keep an eye on Iranian military facility and they are being suspected of cleaning up radioactive evidence. But the world forgot about 22nd September 1979 when Israel carried out a testing of neutron bomb in the South Indian Ocean.

In the end, there is no guarantee that Israel, that has threatened for a war against Iran, will not use its nuclear power. Already during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had put Jericho Missiles on high alert, so that they could be used as a last resort against Egypt and Syria. Then, Golda Meir declined its usage. But would Benjamin Netanyahu do the same? Well, the answer remains abstract and uncontrolled.

Netanyahu and Obama’s stand on Iran; release of an Israeli spy still ignored.

For the past 27 years, Israel has been trying to free Jonathan Pollard, a civilian American Naval intelligence Analyst.  Both US and Israel have kept him under a plea agreement. Years back, Jonathan found out about an undeclared intelligence embargo continuing in US under which Israel was not provided information regarding vital details about Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear weapons/ capabilities. Under his ideological sense, Jonathan felt it was his prime duty to deliver these vital informations to Israel that granted him citizenship later in 1995. But he had to pay a huge price for it. He still suffers life sentence as has become another abstract and unheard demand for Israeli PM Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who still awaits a response from Obama administration, however understands that US can not be considered ‘ignorant’ or pressurized by Israel. For the past several months, both these political leaders have been going through a bind. The tension between them became clearer when US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta disclosed the nascent plans of Israel regarding an attack on Iran in April. In a quite intelligent manner, Netanyahu has shifted the entire focus of Israel’s concern from Palestine to Iran. He wants US to start the war as America leads in terms of weapons, ballistic missiles, grenades and of course, nuclear power. That is exactly why Netanyahu is more concerned of destroying Iran’s nuclear ‘capability’ rather than its ‘intentions‘. Israeli leaders want to operate a unilateral military action against Iran, which perhaps would not include alarming US before they do attack.

“Iran and IAEA’

Currently, Iran, like other countries, eg- Brazil, Japan, Argentina does have a right to enrich uranium as the NPT signatory. Under the IAEA scrutiny, Tehran needs to be transparent about its experiments and once it satisfies IAEA, it can enrich uranium and follow the peaceful fuel cycle nuclear energy programme. In spite of knowing all of this, Israel is threatened that Iran aims to wipe it out from the world’s map, as Iranian President had once confessed. President Ahmedanijad does not even accept that Holocaust under Hitler ever happened in world’s history and literally loathes the entire ‘Zionist identity’. Though, Ayatollah Khameini, the Supreme Leader continues to state that having nuclear power is a sin and non-Islamic, at the end of the day, he has the power to operate them.

‘Parliamentary elections in Iran’

In the meanwhile, 9th Majlis (Parliamentary elections) took place last Friday in Iran. US and Israel had believed that the ‘crippling sanctions’ would frustrate the Iranian citizens against thire government and the elections would not be able to preserve its sanctity. Interestingly, 65% of the 48 million people came to cast their vote. Hence, it definitely comes as a slap for the Zionist controlled governments (ZGOs) who are suspected to cause  protests against the President in 2009 Green Revolution. Iran also suffers from fractured political presentation. Firstly, it does not have political parties and secondly, the distance between President Ahmedanijad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini is increasing day by day, as they both see each other with mutual distrust and suspicion. But that does not pose a lot of threat because the values of kinship in Middle East are different. The famous saying , ‘ Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my brother and my cousin against the outsider.’

‘Obama’s dilemma’

In any case, when President Obama addressed the AIPAC annual convention yesterday, he said exactly what any diplomatic leader would utter. He talked about ‘loose talk of war’,  did not define the ‘red lines‘ and declared that US would not follow the policy of ‘containment.’ Before the entire political drama was unfolding, it was definitely expected that whatever Obama would say, might make a point, a difference. Unfortunately, it did not. Everything from praising Israeli President Simon Peres and his Jewish identity to claiming that ‘Israel’s security is sacrosanct and non-negotiable’, felt like a well mugged speech. In fact, President Obama called President Peres for receiving the ‘Presidential Medal of Freedom’ which is the highest Civilian honour by the White House.

Undoubtedly, President Obama is acting as a ‘duck President‘ right now. The reason is, he wants to secure his second term. In 2008, he won by 78% of Jewish votes. Thus, this year, he is trying his level best to secure votes from Jewish populations in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Nevada. Though, as the US president and Commander in Chief of the army, he is the strongest man, in fact, a dictator in his own merit. But he cannot take a nasty stand with AIPAC, the pro Israel lobby in America. Well, not only would his presidency be threatened, he can even be assassinated.

Thus, as President Obama still states that any war on Iran would be a mere distraction and exploit the peace, Israel definitely has other plans. But it needs to remember that its not Syria or Iraq that are developing nuclear power and hence, it can easily destroy it. Its Iran and definitely, whatever might be the pattern of bombardment used, a huge price would have to be paid by both these three countries.