US forces have at last withdrawn from cities and towns across Iraq, handing control to local forces more than six years after the invasion. Those Americans left in Iraq will now be mostly confined to their barracks, in what military folk rather tediously call an 'overwatch' role. Basically they're able to step in if something goes wrong, but from here on in, the Iraqis are largely on their own.
You might think that things have been relatively quiet in Iraq in the two years since the 'surge' of US troops went after the bad guys and stopped much of the violence. And you'd be right, relatively speaking. But in the last couple of weeks there's been a sudden increase in bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere, which have left dozens of civilians dead. The people carrying out the attacks are keen to let everyone in Iraq know that the US is not leaving in victory, but is being forced out by the continued unrest.
The big question now is - how many more bomb attacks will the US allow to happen before its forces are ordered out of the barracks and back into the cities? Military bosses will be telling President Obama that relatively small operations in particular neighbourhoods could root out those behind the recent attacks, and that US troops wouldn't need to leave their bases for long. But Mr Obama will also have to consider the politics of all this. The reason the troops are leaving now is because he made an explicit promise to do so during his campaign for the presidency. To appear to go back on that promise, even if only for a short time, would be a political blow for him, and would also beg the question of how many more times US forces would be called on to leave their barracks to carry out further missions. Mr Obama would prefer not to have to send them back into harm's way at all. But if the bombings continue, he may feel he has no choice.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Tense Times In Iran
The angry reaction to the official result of the election in Iran continues. Supporters of the opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi have called off a rally planned for today after government officials said it was illegal. They accuse the government of rigging the results of last week's poll, to make sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was returned for another term as president. Many of the Mousavi supporters are young students, and dark rumours are filtering through from the university of an alleged massacre last night. Reports say the campus is draped in black banners today.
From a western perspective, this is not a situation that anyone wanted. Sure, western leaders would generally have preferred a clear victory for the more moderate Mr Mousavi over the anti-American Mr Ahmadinejad. But another four years of President Ahmadinejad wouldn't necessarily be the worst outcome, because at least he would offer a certain stability in what is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter. And stability keeps the price of oil down. The disputed election result has led to this current crisis, which threatens to cause not just instability in the oil markets, but also a lot of bloodshed on the streets of Iran. Western leaders and the rest of us can do little more than wait, watch, and hope for the best.
From a western perspective, this is not a situation that anyone wanted. Sure, western leaders would generally have preferred a clear victory for the more moderate Mr Mousavi over the anti-American Mr Ahmadinejad. But another four years of President Ahmadinejad wouldn't necessarily be the worst outcome, because at least he would offer a certain stability in what is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter. And stability keeps the price of oil down. The disputed election result has led to this current crisis, which threatens to cause not just instability in the oil markets, but also a lot of bloodshed on the streets of Iran. Western leaders and the rest of us can do little more than wait, watch, and hope for the best.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Photo Finish In Iran
It's the last day of campaigning in Iran's presidential election. Four contenders are standing, but only two have a chance of winning, current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi.
It looks as though it's going to be very close, and the result matters for the rest of the world. Arguably the biggest byproduct of the Iraq War has been the rise of Iran's influence, as it pursues its nuclear programme and shows growing signs of meddling in the affairs of neighbours and near-neighbours from Afghanistan to Lebanon. Partly this confrontational stance has been driven by the hardline position of Mr Ahmadinejad, along with the clerics who still hold huge sway over the politics of Iran. The veteran Mr Mousavi on the other hand, would probably be more conciliatory were he to win the election. A man the west would find it easier to do business with, perhaps. Although having said that, those clerics would demand that Iran remains a tough, strong player on the regional and international scene. And they would also insist that the nuclear programme continues.
Although his rivals have accused Mr Ahmadinejad of isolating Iran with his extreme outbursts which make headlines over here from time to time, it might be a more familiar subject which leads to his defeat - the economy. He's under pressure for allegedly lying about the state of Iran's finances, as the country struggles because of high inflation and the lower price of oil. But if Friday's vote does indeed mean the end for Mr Ahmadinejad, western leaders won't care too much about what causes it.
It looks as though it's going to be very close, and the result matters for the rest of the world. Arguably the biggest byproduct of the Iraq War has been the rise of Iran's influence, as it pursues its nuclear programme and shows growing signs of meddling in the affairs of neighbours and near-neighbours from Afghanistan to Lebanon. Partly this confrontational stance has been driven by the hardline position of Mr Ahmadinejad, along with the clerics who still hold huge sway over the politics of Iran. The veteran Mr Mousavi on the other hand, would probably be more conciliatory were he to win the election. A man the west would find it easier to do business with, perhaps. Although having said that, those clerics would demand that Iran remains a tough, strong player on the regional and international scene. And they would also insist that the nuclear programme continues.
Although his rivals have accused Mr Ahmadinejad of isolating Iran with his extreme outbursts which make headlines over here from time to time, it might be a more familiar subject which leads to his defeat - the economy. He's under pressure for allegedly lying about the state of Iran's finances, as the country struggles because of high inflation and the lower price of oil. But if Friday's vote does indeed mean the end for Mr Ahmadinejad, western leaders won't care too much about what causes it.
Monday, June 01, 2009
No Alternatives, But No War Either
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says the US isn't looking for an alternative to the current six-party talks on North Korea. The standoff over North Korea's nuclear programme was recently ratcheted up a notch by its latest nuclear test, along with a series of tests of non-nuclear missiles. Mr Gates told his counterparts from Japan and South Korea today that diplomacy remains the way forward, although other options may be considered if that fails.
But here's the thing. Diplomacy won't fail altogether, in as much as there won't be an all-out war. North Korea doesn't want to start another Korean War, let alone a nuclear one. The warnings from North Korea about aiming missiles at the South, or taking even stronger measures if the UN announces further sanctions (as it probably will do this week), are not made with the idea that those threats will ever be carried out.
North Korea's actions are all about old-fashioned power politics. Its interest is in strengthening its position so when it eventually decides to take the negotiations seriously it can get more of what it wants, which probably include things like trade and aid. There's also the personal motivation of the ailing Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il. With no obvious successor, North Korea faces an uncertain future should he die, and he's surely worried that not only his regime, but perhaps the whole country might cease to exist after he's gone. Having nuclear weapons and showing them off every now and again makes that prospect far more remote.
But here's the thing. Diplomacy won't fail altogether, in as much as there won't be an all-out war. North Korea doesn't want to start another Korean War, let alone a nuclear one. The warnings from North Korea about aiming missiles at the South, or taking even stronger measures if the UN announces further sanctions (as it probably will do this week), are not made with the idea that those threats will ever be carried out.
North Korea's actions are all about old-fashioned power politics. Its interest is in strengthening its position so when it eventually decides to take the negotiations seriously it can get more of what it wants, which probably include things like trade and aid. There's also the personal motivation of the ailing Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il. With no obvious successor, North Korea faces an uncertain future should he die, and he's surely worried that not only his regime, but perhaps the whole country might cease to exist after he's gone. Having nuclear weapons and showing them off every now and again makes that prospect far more remote.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Deal?
Lawyers for the former political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic, say they will present evidence at his war crimes trial of a deal he allegedly struck with a top US diplomat. They want the charges against him thrown out on the basis of a promise, purportedly made in 1996 by the man who was America's peace envoy to the former Yugoslavia Richard Holbrooke, that Karadzic would be given immunity from prosecution. Karadzic has long claimed such a deal existed, and Holbrooke has always denied it, but now Karadzic's lawyers say they'll show us the evidence next week.
In one sense, this doesn't really matter. The lawyers want the charges thrown out because of this alleged deal, but the court has already said that, even if the deal did exist, it wouldn't be enough of a reason for the trial to collapse.
But there are two things to say about this. The first is that, if it turns out there really was a deal, it would be more than a little embarrassing for plenty of people back in Washington. That includes Bill Clinton, who would surely have known about such a promise, and Barack Obama, who recently appointed Mr Holbrooke as his special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's one thing to be a pragmatic diplomat and talk to your enemies, but quite another to tell someone who is probably responsible (at the very, very least indirectly) for the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people that he'll be in the clear if he keeps his head down.
That point presumes the evidence of this supposed deal is believable. But even if it's not, we're now getting a sense of how the Karadzic trial will play out. And it's starting to look suspiciously similar to the trial of the ex-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. Over several years, there were delaying tactics, some grandstanding from the man himself, hundreds of witnesses and lots of evidence - yet not much that really firmly established his guilt. In the end, he died before the trial finished. There's no suggestion Karadzic's health is as bad as Milosevic's was, but it's fair to assume we're probably years away from reaching the end of this case.
In one sense, this doesn't really matter. The lawyers want the charges thrown out because of this alleged deal, but the court has already said that, even if the deal did exist, it wouldn't be enough of a reason for the trial to collapse.
But there are two things to say about this. The first is that, if it turns out there really was a deal, it would be more than a little embarrassing for plenty of people back in Washington. That includes Bill Clinton, who would surely have known about such a promise, and Barack Obama, who recently appointed Mr Holbrooke as his special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's one thing to be a pragmatic diplomat and talk to your enemies, but quite another to tell someone who is probably responsible (at the very, very least indirectly) for the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people that he'll be in the clear if he keeps his head down.
That point presumes the evidence of this supposed deal is believable. But even if it's not, we're now getting a sense of how the Karadzic trial will play out. And it's starting to look suspiciously similar to the trial of the ex-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. Over several years, there were delaying tactics, some grandstanding from the man himself, hundreds of witnesses and lots of evidence - yet not much that really firmly established his guilt. In the end, he died before the trial finished. There's no suggestion Karadzic's health is as bad as Milosevic's was, but it's fair to assume we're probably years away from reaching the end of this case.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Gracious In Victory?
After more than a quarter of a century of civil war, the Tamil Tigers have finally been defeated. All territory lost, the body of their dead leader paraded on Sri Lankan television, their hopes of establishing a Tamil homeland in the north of the island apparently over. Or at least that's how it looks today, following the decisive military victory won by Sri Lankan government forces. But it's not quite as simple as that.
Leaving aside the allegations of human rights abuses on both sides, and the reported quarter of a million people displaced in recent weeks by the government's final offensive, what happens next politically is hugely important for the future of Sri Lanka. If the conflict is not to flare up again in future, the government must be gracious in victory, and begin work immediately towards doing a better job of involving the Tamil people in the government and general society of the whole island. But if the Sri Lankan government and the majority Sinhalese population insist on humiliating the Tamils (and after such a bitter, long-running war, that wouldn't be too surprising), then they'll only be storing up trouble.
The Tamil Tigers may no longer have the ability to take and hold territory, and the days when they had their own navy and air force seem like a long time ago now, but you can bet that some of the surviving Tigers will be intent on revenge. Some form of guerrilla campaign, featuring the suicide bombings the Tigers became infamous for, will be inevitable unless the Sri Lankan government takes care to give the Tamil people at least some of what they've been fighting for. Perhaps greater autonomy might be a start. Otherwise, with a Tamil population around the world now radicalised by the bloody defeat suffered by the Tigers, another war could soon be in the offing.
Leaving aside the allegations of human rights abuses on both sides, and the reported quarter of a million people displaced in recent weeks by the government's final offensive, what happens next politically is hugely important for the future of Sri Lanka. If the conflict is not to flare up again in future, the government must be gracious in victory, and begin work immediately towards doing a better job of involving the Tamil people in the government and general society of the whole island. But if the Sri Lankan government and the majority Sinhalese population insist on humiliating the Tamils (and after such a bitter, long-running war, that wouldn't be too surprising), then they'll only be storing up trouble.
The Tamil Tigers may no longer have the ability to take and hold territory, and the days when they had their own navy and air force seem like a long time ago now, but you can bet that some of the surviving Tigers will be intent on revenge. Some form of guerrilla campaign, featuring the suicide bombings the Tigers became infamous for, will be inevitable unless the Sri Lankan government takes care to give the Tamil people at least some of what they've been fighting for. Perhaps greater autonomy might be a start. Otherwise, with a Tamil population around the world now radicalised by the bloody defeat suffered by the Tigers, another war could soon be in the offing.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The British Leave Iraq
British combat operations in Iraq have finally ended, with a handover to American forces. 179 British personnel have died since the invasion of the country six years ago. During the same period, around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (some estimates put the figure much higher, but I'm going with the number supplied by Iraq Body Count).
You can't fail to have noticed that the arguments about whether the war was a good idea in the first place have never really stopped raging. They aren't finished yet either, because the government now seems certain to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of how it ended up going to war. Even if that inquiry is held in secret, the same old arguments, hopefully mixed in with some new information, will be heard again and again.
Leaving all that aside for just now, the other obvious question to ask about Britain's involvement in Iraq over the last six years is - has it been a success? The answer is a qualified no. No because of those 100,000 dead Iraqis, those 179 dead British soldiers, the strengthening of Iran, and because of the huge dent to the moral authority of the US, Britain and the other pro-war nations. On the other hand, and this is where the qualified part comes in, at least Saddam Hussein isn't ruling Iraq anymore.
That's not quite the only good thing to say about Iraq though. Whisper it quietly, but at long last it seems as though much of Iraq is now a pretty safe place to be, certainly the areas in the south which were previously under British control. Suggestions that it's now safer to walk around Basra than London are surely exaggerated, but the country certainly hasn't plunged back into chaos and civil war even though the local Iraqi forces are handling security. It may well be that in decades to come Iraq will indeed become a relatively stable, relatively free, democratic country, in the mould of the Iraq envisaged by Bush and Blair when they decided to invade. That will be a good thing. But the shocking human cost of such an achievement can't be forgotten.
You can't fail to have noticed that the arguments about whether the war was a good idea in the first place have never really stopped raging. They aren't finished yet either, because the government now seems certain to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of how it ended up going to war. Even if that inquiry is held in secret, the same old arguments, hopefully mixed in with some new information, will be heard again and again.
Leaving all that aside for just now, the other obvious question to ask about Britain's involvement in Iraq over the last six years is - has it been a success? The answer is a qualified no. No because of those 100,000 dead Iraqis, those 179 dead British soldiers, the strengthening of Iran, and because of the huge dent to the moral authority of the US, Britain and the other pro-war nations. On the other hand, and this is where the qualified part comes in, at least Saddam Hussein isn't ruling Iraq anymore.
That's not quite the only good thing to say about Iraq though. Whisper it quietly, but at long last it seems as though much of Iraq is now a pretty safe place to be, certainly the areas in the south which were previously under British control. Suggestions that it's now safer to walk around Basra than London are surely exaggerated, but the country certainly hasn't plunged back into chaos and civil war even though the local Iraqi forces are handling security. It may well be that in decades to come Iraq will indeed become a relatively stable, relatively free, democratic country, in the mould of the Iraq envisaged by Bush and Blair when they decided to invade. That will be a good thing. But the shocking human cost of such an achievement can't be forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
