|
« June 2006 |
Main
| August 2006 »
 The war goes on, and peace looks ever more distant.
Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?
Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora
The alliance begins to fracture in despair, and a thousand terrorists are born.
 Grotesque factual errors aside (3.2billion in China's cities by next year, anyone?), Tristram Hunt in Comment is Free correctly draws the comparison between modern urban China and Dickensian Britain. The only difference is that there's no Dickens calling for reform.
The similarities, writes Hunt, are striking:
Between 1770 and 1840 Britain underwent one of the most dramatic urban migrations in world history. Hundreds of thousands left their villages and farmsteads for the workshops of Birmingham, docks of Liverpool and mills of Manchester. Sheffield and Bradford doubled their populations in a matter of years.
Today that history is repeating itself in China as families from the rural hinterland decamp for the coastal cities. Every year 8.5 million Chinese peasants make their way into the urban centres. By next year China is set to become a majority-urban nation, with more than 3.2 billion living in cities and suburbs.
But is anyone actually doing anything about the horrendous pollution and squalor that accompanies this? Yes, money has been announced for a general cleanup. But there are some essential factors that are notable by their absence:
The initial Victorian response to the state of their cities was equally lackadaisical. Pollution and inequality was the price of progress, and the middle classes solved their problems by simply moving upwind. But in the end a combination of religion, officialdom and civil society forced the cities to change.
In a country where activists apparently break their own necks in order to get attention (if you believe this, get off my blog), how can real progress begin?
There is no evangelism in China; religion is suppressed. Nor, with a hobbled media and non-existent political opposition, is there any civil society. Officialdom can be trusted only to line its own pockets, as it has done for centuries.
And, of course, the writer cannot resist a final warning from history:
Ultimately the urban masses had to be enfranchised. For at the forefront of politicians' minds was another story of rapid urbanisation. Across the Channel, France too was trying to cope with startling rates of immigration and industrialisation. But the consequence of its political fumbling was a Paris in flames in 1830, 1848 and 1871. That is a history the Chinese are all too keen to avoid.
Continue reading "Smoke and the City" »
 Nice graphics, scary economics.
Fears of a slowdown | Economist.com
Unfortunately, the Chinese government has few tools at its disposal to manage the pace of growth. Its attempts to tighten monetary policy have been feeble, hampered by its policy of keeping the yuan artificially cheap. Though the government has tried to “sterilise” its foreign currency operations by issuing more government securities to mop up the resulting excess yuan, its efforts are constrained by the shaky banking system.
China has tried to bolster its weak macroeconomic controls with microeconomic interventions, placing administrative restrictions on investment in specific industries it considers to be growing too fast. China’s economy may now be too big for such policies to do much good but the government is fearful of choking off export-led growth when so many Chinese are desperate for jobs. And the relatively primitive state of China’s financial system makes it hard to fine-tune either micro or macroeconomic policies—particularly since so much investment is driven by political considerations at all levels of government.
 The Economist is predictably gloomy about the collapse of the Doha round in this week's edition. As well it mightbe, being one of the leading voices calling for free trade. And it doesn't mince its words:
This disaster, born of complacency and neglect, signals a defeat of the common good by special-interest politics. If the wreck is terminal—and after a five-year stalemate, that seems likely—everyone will be the poorer, perhaps gravely so.
The authors see this as the sounding of the death knell not just for one round of talks but for the liberalisation project as a whole. And those who suffer will inevitably be the poor of the third world, while the rich countries hug their safety blanket of subsidised agriculture with fearsome determination.
I'm not someone who feels properly initiated in the dark arts of global trade, but The Economist describes it nicely:
Multilateral liberalisation is a sort of jujitsu that uses exporters' determination to get into foreign markets to overwhelm domestic lobbies that would sooner keep home markets closed. The trade diplomat's incantation that to open his market is a “concession” granted in exchange for an opening somewhere else is economic nonsense spouted for domestic political purposes. But it is remarkably fruitful nonsense because, within the World Trade Organisation, any concession to one trade partner is automatically extended to all members. This trick has helped the world enjoy decades of prosperity.
Now that the round has failed, poor countries must resort to the complexities of bilateral deals with rich countries, which basically gives the rich countries an advantage. They deal on a one-on-one basis, and thus the Third World can't rely on safety in numbers as it could under the WTO:
Bilateral deals are complex and tend to be bad for poor countries. In multilateral deals, poor countries can piggyback on powerful countries' negotiating clout; in bilateral deals, they're on their own. And the more bilateral deals are in place, the harder it will be to pull off a multilateral one.
Put in a wider context still, if the pessimists' predications are true then this week signals the beginning of a further decline of the developing world, and a widening of the gap between rich and poor, powerful and weak.
With oil resources running down and prices at higher levels than ever, it's harder and harder for poor countries to make ends meet. It's during the industrialisation phase that they need it the most.
Add to this a dash of Islamic fundamentalism, which tends to thrive on the disenchantment of the middle classes who probably stand to lose most and you can see where we're going.
Not this year, not next year. But the effects will soon begin to take hold.
Continue reading "Globalisation Immobilised" »
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Yaks threaten China's 'miracle' train line
As well as the yaks, Tibet has found a most unlikely ally in the struggle against the Han influx:
The line depends on coolants to stop the ice upon which it rests from melting. But global warming has raised temperatures in the mountain region faster than expected. As well as damaging concrete pillars and bridges, it has added to the problem of sand dunes that encroach upon the track.
 Over a billion people means a lot of problems. But while the Bombay attacks and the Kashmir conflict have a high profile on the international scene, the Maoist insurgency in India does not.
Though Manmohan Singh terms it the country's biggest threat, the way in which the Naxalites are being handled sounds cackhanded indeed:
A huge swathe of Dantewada, where no roads penetrate the forest, remains outside the government’s control. There, the Maoists are well-entrenched. Nearly 60 years after independence, the Indian state has still failed to deliver to these parts even rudimentary development: roads, schools, health-care. A big iron mine in the district employs mainly outsiders and pollutes a river. It is easy to see why a crude, violent ideology, discredited even in its homeland, might take root, and why Mr Singh might be right about the Naxalite threat. Other terrorists attack the Indian state at its strongpoints—its secularism, its inclusiveness and its democracy. Naxalism attacks where it is weakest: in delivering basic government services to those who need them most.
Not to mention the army turfing villagers out of their homes, a policy that resembles America's deeply flawed and even counterproductive 'strategic hamlets' tactic from Vietnam. That didn't work either, and it sounds like India is alienating its rural people even further.
You can read all the column inches you like about India's burgeoning economy, but unless a way is found of spreading the wealth, the same old problems are going to linger on - and one day they could explode.
Continue reading "Hearts and Minds" »
Lots of useful stats and analysis on the Iran-Pakistan-India LNG pipeline, and more besides on India's energy issues.
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - Price imbroglio stymies Iran pipeline
The United States is no longer the main stumbling block to the planned US$7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. All issues, including US pressure to abandon the 2,100-kilometer project, have been relegated to the back burner as India and Pakistan team up to try to persuade Iran to soften the price at which it wants to deliver the gas.
Tehran is demanding $7.20 per million British thermal units, linked to global crude-oil prices. The Iranian position is considerably higher than India's offer of $4.25 per mBtu at its border with Pakistan. Though Pakistan has been voicing plans of going it alone in case India decides to drop out, that may not happen if the price issue is not resolved.
Iran has rejected India's demand for a price equivalent to international long-term gas-supply contracts, saying that New Delhi should forget about buying Iranian gas at a low price. Tehran's stand has been emboldened by a Europe desperately seeking other sources of gas after last year's crisis due to the spat between Russia and Ukraine.
 The accidental (?) deaths of four UN observers after an Israeli bomb went astray may actually have some positive side-effects. Much as I sympathise with the families of the dead, there's two things worth mentioning.
Firstly, it lays to rest the myth that Israel is conducting a campaign of surgical strikes against Hizbollah. Hardly. It proves once and for all that Israel is firing indiscriminately into Lebanon, unmindful of the effects it may have on the civilian population.
While I agree that Israel has the right to conduct a military campaign against Hizbollah, it must be conducted under the rules of war.
More significantly, aside from prompting righteous indignation from Kofi Annan and the UN, it has forced China well and truly into the picture. It's not as severe as the bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade, but now that a Chinese is dead then there has to be a response.
With its rising economy and political and military power, it is about time that China drifted away from its position of abstention and began taking sides. It may be too late for Darfur, but if it goes to a Security Council vote, it looks like China will have an influence.
What effect this will have when China begins to engage in the region remains to be seen, but it's not looking like it will side with Israel. Let's also not forget that the PRC has close links with Iran.
Story below.
Continue reading "China Comes Off the Fence" »
 Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pakistan launches huge nuclear arms drive
An interesting exchange:
Commodore Uday Bhaskar of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Analysis in Delhi suggested the timing of the report could be intended to influence the US Congress's debate on the Indian deal:
"My initial reaction is that one of the report's authors [David Albright] is a critic of the India-US nuclear deal and therefore this report has to be seen in the light of its passage through Congress. It may be true but there's a reason why the report appears now."
Mr Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now runs Isis, denied there was any link between the timing of the report and the congressional debate. "It is a strange twist to the debate to see a potential Pakistani threat to India as an attempt to derail the India agreement in Congress," he said, adding that the publication was dictated more by the need to get the report out before the summer holidays began.
There is speculation in Delhi that the new plant may be a fresh sign of China's commitment to a "strategic partnership" with Pakistan. The pair already have extensive military and diplomatic ties.
"China has supported Pakistan since the 80s and it remains the wild card here," Commodore Bhaskar said. "At the time of the Indo-US deal, there were clear indications that Beijing thought if Washington can assist India, China can aid Pakistan."
Mr Albright said Chinese assistance was a possibility.
"You always worry that some of this is coming from China. Can Pakistan really do all this on its own? You wonder," he said. "That would be very serious."
Original Isis report here. Note the conclusion:
South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at a minimum vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material. A negotiated agreement that results in a halt to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons should be a priority for the international community. Not only are such arsenals a waste of precious resources, they increase instability in the region and could needlessly provoke China to respond by increasing the size and lethality of its own nuclear capabilities.
 More doom, gloom and rampant speculation from Asia Times' Chan Akya. However, there is a tenuous point to it:
We have to recognize that no established Islamic power has the ability to strike outside of its immediate border. The armed forces of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran have no capacity to inflict meaningful harm on the West. The sole exception is Pakistan, which is why the global terrorist brotherhood will probably focus more of its attention on this country than any other in the next few months.
Whether or not the Pakistani state can or will "inflict meaningful harm on the West" is not exactly the point, but in terms of vulnerability to collapse or coup, Pakistan is way up there in the list of potential flashpoints.
There isn't a hell of a lot of evidence for the next point either, but it's an interesting theory:
Just as Syria failed to show much control over Hezbollah, Pakistan has lost control of its militants, who now appear to work directly with al-Qaeda command structures. The turning point could well have been the Pakistani army attacks in the Pashtun areas that were undertaken to keep the US happy in its "war on terror".
Disenchanted that the Pakistani army could kill its own creations, Kashmiri militants appear to have bypassed the army, going straight to the Taliban and perhaps even to bin Laden. This explains the attacks on both Srinagar (grenade explosions that killed nine) and Mumbai on the same day, a move that seems to have caught even the Pakistani army by surprise, if its state of readiness in the days preceding the attacks is any indication.
It is certainly true that the Pakistani military is not making friends among Islamic militants, and is caught in a complex web of alliances and counter alliances across the various conflicts on Balochistan, Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier - including with anti-Taliban US Forces. It's a volatile combination that eventually has to break down.
Whether or not Pakistani Islamists are in league with al-Qaeda, as the author suggests, is not really relevant. I'm also not convinced of the argument that the Militants will ventually get their hands on nuclear technology, though there is mounting evidence of increasing production capacity in Pakistan.
Think 'Pakistan' and 'nuclear' and the next word that comes to mind is 'China'. China is key to the build of Pakistan's military, and props the failed state up in other ways in order to gain from its geopolitical position at a key strategic point for oil supply routes.
While there's little danger of China casting aside its ally in Musharraf, the government that would follow him would be another matter. And eventually, Musharraf is going to fall, whether due to pressure from the outside regarding his nuclear ambitions or pressure from the inside from the Islamists and nationalists.
I'm not impressed with Akya's argument that China will side with the West in order to stave the threat of Taiwanese independence in the background: if anything, China might take the opportunity to seize the strategic zones it needs for energy security and then move on Taiwan while the US flounders in Iran and elsewhere.
But, of course, who can tell?
Continue reading "China, India and WW3 (Part 2)" »
Go to town with China, but write home about India
Nice collection of statistics on relative economic indicators. Here's an interesting one:
On the human development front, China’s human development index (HDI) ranking slipped from 82 in 1991, to 85 in 2006. India’s condition was similar as it slipped from 123 in 1991, to 127 in 2005.
Despite all the growth, are things really getting better?
Battleground Balochistan - HindustanTimes.com
The "Balochistan separatist bubble", led by Baloch tribal leader Nawab Akhbar Bugti, has finally burst, an account of military briefing published in newspapers here said on Thursday.
"The organised mayhem is finished off and the separatists plans these sub-nationalist terrorists organisations were making with material support from India have been knocked off," a military official was quoted as saying by The News.
I'd be extremely surprised were this true.
Comment is free: The new world immaturity
This is one of those moments in history when people recognise that they are in some kind of interregnum. They can describe the past - the old bi-polar world shaped by the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. And they can pick out the new things that will shape the future - Chinese industry, al-Qaida, Russian energy markets, Israeli confrontation with Iran, Aids in Africa, and environmental degradation, for example.
 The Spanish Civil War was really just a prelude to World War II. Could a similar pattern of events alreay be unfolding?
Perhaps somewhat fanciful, premature and over-the-top, but at least someone is thinking about it. Asia Times' Chan Akya considers, in a two part series, how China and India might get involved should the tide of conflict in the Middle East expand further.
After a somewhat overenthusiastic reference to Huntingdon's Clash of Civilizations and a long historical passage, the author then hits a nail more-or-less on the head:
There are today not enough Christians or Muslims in China to push the country in the direction of supporting either the West or Islam in any global conflagration. However, a resurgent West poses more of a threat to China's patriarchal culture, which is not very different from the centralized authority-driven culture of Islam. Given that, it is more likely that China would tilt toward supporting Islam, as its weapons-proliferation efforts over the past few years have shown.
Yep. The Uyghurs are hardly a threat to China, while if India were to side with the West then its Muslim population might just explode. And China has been sponsoring Iran (not to mention Iraq, too) for decades. If the price is right, they'll sell to anyone - and they get the oil rights in return.
As to whether I agree with the concluding paragraphs, I'm not sure:
This leads me to conclude that an escalation of the conflict in the Middle East would eventually necessitate the West to demand adequate support from China, failing which the country itself could become a target. The waxworks of Beijing are likely to grant enough concessions to the West to avoid being attacked, and then lie in wait for their revenge.
The Indian situation is more precarious. While much of the country's right-wing intelligentsia would push it to war against Islam, there is enough of a fifth column in place to thwart the country's historic quest for vengeance. India's Muslims number more than any other country's in the world with the exception of Indonesia. Add to these the populations of both Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Indian military might is in essence boxed in.
The West demand support from China? Like it is already trying to do over sanctions for Sudan, North Korea and Iran? Give me a break. The West knows it won't get a smidgin of help from Beijing, and will thus be more likely to expect direct (or indirect) conflict. China will probably see its opportunity to firm up its energy security, not to mention nationalist ambitions such as Taiwan when the West's back is turned.
India, on the other hand, I do expect to be somehow squeezed in the middle, unable to act in its own interests, effectively encircled by China via Sino-friendly states such as Pakistan and Burma, a weak and politically fractured Nepal and the conquered territory of Tibet.
Read on below.
Continue reading "China, India and WW3" »
A neat piece of analysis.
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
Given that Hezbollah emplaced its rocketry in Shi'ite civilian neighborhoods, Israel must reduce civilian areas to stop rocket attacks. The fact that casualties number in the hundreds rather than the tens of thousands shows that Israel has been meticulous about creating refugees rather than corpses. Nonetheless, Israel has forced the burden of uncertainty on its enemies, including by implication Syria and eventually Iran.
At least 200,000, and perhaps twice that number of refugees, have descended on Syria, joining half a million displaced Iraqis and perhaps 300,000 Palestinian refugees. Refugee streams clog the few undamaged routes between Syria and Lebanon. Evidently Syria fears destabilization; Information Minister Mohsen Bilal linked his July 23 threat of military action against Israel to the "evacuation" of Lebanon.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The Economist's choice of title (from a poem by Dylan Thomas) for its analysis of the collapse of the WTO talks is apposite indeed. Think of what you might, for better or for worse the WTO is now the light that failed.
The historic chance to truly liberalize the world economy looks like it has eluded us, and at the end of the day those who will suffer most will be the poor and the deprived. Europe's ludicrous and insane Common Agricultural Policy will continue to screw people in Africa and elsewhere:
This is a tragedy, especially for the developing world. Last year, the World Bank estimated that global gains from trade liberalisation would equal roughly $287 billion, of which $86 billion would accrue to developing nations, lifting at least 66m people out of poverty. Activist groups including Greenpeace and Oxfam were quick to condemn both Washington and Brussels for intransigence over agricultural subsidies, saying that rich-world self interest is leaving the poor to suffer.
For the benefit of a few French farmers, cheap subsidised grain will continue to flood the world market putting local producers out of business and ultimately creating the conditions for famine. As Amartya Sen correctly says, it's not just drought that triggers starvation - it's economics.
It's not often that I spring to Bush's defence, and this is not one of those times, but The Economist has a point:
The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader.
The truth is that while there have been grave men and wise men, the good men have had no real voice. And I too think that the blame lies squarely with our very own beloved EU.
What has not been said, so far, is who else will gain from this. I think there's going to be one big beneficiary... it's coming... China. Without demands to relax trade tariffs on manufactured imports etc. China may well continue to resist becoming the 'world's largest market', as so many expect it to be.
On the other hand, if the West begin slapping tariffs and quotas on imports from China, the whole edifice of the PRC could swiftly begin to crumble. I don't think it'll come to that, but it could be one of a cocktail of factors that lead us further down that dark road, burning and raving at the close of day.
Continue reading "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night..." »
This guy just got back to China after a visit to Delhi. I think he got the shock of his life.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | India struggles to catch China
Every time you turn on the television or pick up a magazine, it is no longer the rise of China, it is now the rise of China and India.
The desire to make comparisons is understandable. Both have more than a billion people. Both are growing at 10% a year.
There are, I suspect, many who are hoping that India, with its freedom and democracy, will win this new race to become the next economic super power. I am not so sure.
I'm on the same wavelength as you, Rupert Wingfield-Hayes. The people who talk this up need to get out there and see, smell and experience it for themselves. Only then can we really progress.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: see also these posts at Peking Duck and Talk Talk China. I do think that in order to slag India off you need to have actually been there too. Some of the comments on TTC are extremely unbalanced.
 More analysis, this time from Auntie Beeb, attempting to answer the questions we all want answered. What happens next? What does all this mean for the Middle East and for the world as a whole?
It's not as if there hasn't been a crisis in the Levant before. However, moving on from the second intifadah, this is the first time that Israel's army has started spilling over its borders since 9/11. It's the first local conflict of the 'War on Terror', and with Islam militating across Eurasia the repercussions may be very different to 1982.
Like myself, the author believes that things are basically going to get worse:
Israel's actions may indeed be counter-productive, by boosting support for these groups beyond the immediate circle of their core Islamist constituencies.
Israel's underlying dilemma remains unchanged.
If it does not wish to re-occupy either Gaza or southern Lebanon, then there needs to be in place a Lebanese government and a Palestinian Authority strong enough to prevent rocket or other cross-border attacks.
Air strikes coupled with limited military incursions in both territories have made this less, rather than more, likely.
And he is right to identify the fact that events are occuring within a far wider context. The world is globalised. The 'War on Terror' is globalised too. Not just TV but now the Internet make these events seem very very close to home, even to those very very far away. In a sense there is no such thing as a 'regional conflict' any more:
As Arab rulers are only too well aware, the current conflict has inflamed anti-Israeli and anti-American feeling to a new pitch.
In this sense its impact extends well beyond the Middle East.
The issue of Israel and the Palestinians still has the power to mobilise Muslims as far away as Indonesia - or for that matter Muslims living in the West.
Moreover the conflict comes against a backdrop of other events which have aggravated tensions between Islam and the West.
The vicious circle within which we find ourselves is only going to get broader. Can Israel and the US really step pull back from the brink? Do they even want to?
Continue reading "A War Within a War" »
 BBC News | In pictures | Beirut destruction | A city in ruins
This is going to make the Lebanese turf out Hezbollah? Or is it just going to make them - and every Muslim who sees these images - turn against Israel and their Western sponsors instead?
No brainer.
 The Observer has a theory. There's a new phenomenon in the Middle East, the 'Shia Resurgence' and what we're seeing in the Levant is a little taste of it.
The article is balanced enough to give voice to those who both advocate the idea and those who dismiss it. However, some facts do seem inescapable.
Since the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Shia there have enjoyed more power than they have had for a long time, though there are deep splits between the factions. Furthermore, there's little doubt that Iran has a hand in things there just as much as it influences Hezbollah.
However, local politics and ethnicity show that there's not necessarily a regional shift towards Tehran. After all, the Shias are still in the minority among the Sunnis, and are viewed as somewhat radical even by them.
But down on the ground, the theory does seem to hold water:
All analysts agree Iran has gained a huge amount of influence - 'soft' power - by saying openly what the majority, Arabs and Persians, Shia and Sunni, in the Middle Eastern 'street' say privately. 'The [Iranian] discourse is pan-Islamist and plays the chord of anti-imperialism, Arab nationalism and anti-Zionism,' said Olivier Roy, the director of the National Scientific Research Centre in Paris.
What Tehran says is also exactly what rulers like King Abdullah, Mubarak or the House of al-Saud cannot say for fear of angering Western allies. And though such regimes can buy off local discontent for a period with increased expenditure on social services and finely calibrated political concessions, the anger in the bazaars and the mosques cannot be contained for ever. It needs an outlet. Tehran, Hizbollah and others have understood this. In the great game of Middle Eastern politics, Western analysts are not the only ones joining the dots.
There's also a very interesting theory over on China Confidential. Basically, with China having a very strong relationship with Iran, it's effectively a win-win situation for them both.
The Iranians, according to the Chinese, see a no-lose opportunity. On the one hand, Iranian ally Syria could surprise Israel and recover the Golan Heights, which the Jewish State captured during the Six-Day War of June 1967. On the other hand, should Syria suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of Israel's superior military forces, the secular Baathist regime in Damascus would almost certainly be toppled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. Either way, Iranian influence in the region would increase, even though the non-Arab Iranians are Shiites and the Syrian Islamists are Sunnis.
Continue reading "A Shia Resurgence?" »
 With Israeli reserves being called up, expect to see a ground offensive launched in the next couple of days. This war is escalating rapidly, and as all students of military history know, it's now easier to keep on going than to change direction and pull back. Just like the great powers mobilised at the opening of World War I, Israel is gaining momentum, and it can't just apply the brakes.
The Economist, nevertheless, calls for exactly that. And so it should, even though it's unlikely. It also argues that this conflict may in fact be a gross miscalculation by both Hizbollah - who didn't expect such a robust response - and by Ehud Olmert, keen to show the electorate and the international community that he's no softie. He's a man conspicuously living in the shadow of Ariel Sharon and other hard-man warrior politicians, and he's got a point to prove.
But the whole premise of the crisis rests on a Hobson's choice. Neither side actually can back down anyway:
If Hizbullah is beaten, it risks losing its position as the strongest power in the fractious Lebanese state, with damaging consequences in the region for its Iranian sponsor and Syrian ally. If Israel falters, many of its people think, the iron wall of military power that has enabled it to win grudging acceptance in the Middle East will have been seriously breached.
That being said, neither are involved in a conflict that it's possible to 'win' an any conventional sense:
However much punishment Mr Olmert inflicts on Hizbullah, he cannot force it to submit in a way that its leaders and followers will perceive as a humiliation. Israel's first invasion of Lebanon turned into its Vietnam. It is plainly unwilling to occupy the place again. But airpower alone will never destroy every last rocket and prevent Hizbullah's fighters from continuing to send them off. No other outside force looks capable of doing the job on Israel's behalf. At present, the only way to disarm Hizbullah is therefore in the context of an agreement Hizbullah itself can be made to accept.
It's amazing that even after decades of terrorism, Israel still assumes that conventional military power can flush out the Islamists. It can't. Even in the unlikely event that Hizbollah was 'wiped out', a new group would simply rise in its place. And hopes that it can be 'beaten' are also misguided:
Hizbullah cannot be uprooted. It is not going formally to surrender. Its past struggle against Israel has won it the fierce loyalty of many Lebanese Shias, and its present one will add to their number even if it comes off worse. Israel's security will not be enhanced by destroying the rest of Lebanon. By weakening the Lebanese state, and its fragile but well-intentioned government, Israel just weakens the already feeble constraints Lebanon tries to impose on Hizbullah's actions.
The only answer The Economist has is for America to promptly broker a settlement. But it doesn't even look like Condi's packed her handbag yet, and Bush is quite happy to let 'this shit' go on for an undetermined period.
Meanwhile, the chances of the rest of the region being sucked in when the invasion begins grow stronger. We don't hear very much from Iran and Syria in the Western media, but you can be sure they'll have something to say when the time is right.
Full article below.
Continue reading "The Accidental War" »
BBC NEWS | Africa | Somali Islamist orders 'holy war'
"I am calling on the Somali people to wage a holy war against Ethiopians in Somalia," said Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of the Union of Islamic Courts.
Ethiopia denies that its forces are in the government's base of Baidoa, but a BBC reporter has seen them patrolling.
It never rains but it pours war in buckets. Given that the area in question is right off the Red Sea shipping lane it's not exactly another pointless though bloody African conflict.
|
