As President George W. Bush said in
his second inaugural address, and as Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice said last summer at the American University in Cairo:
"America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling.
Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain
their own freedom and to make their own way."
Contradicting
their lofty rhetoric, the Bush administration, along with the European
Union, is undermining democracy and U.S. credibility in the Middle
East by sabotaging the result of the January 25 Palestinian elections.
In completely rejecting the outcome they are also effectively giving
up the biggest "carrot" in their arsenals for influencing
Palestinian Authority policy.
This month the U.S. and EU officially cut all support to the Palestinian
Authority because they object to the positions of Hamas, the Islamist
party that won a majority of seats in parliament. The election was
universally acknowledged to be free and fair even though the occupied
territories remain under Israeli military rule. It is also widely
understood that the PA cannot function without outside support.
Dramatically cutting all PA aid sends a crystal clear message—Palestinians
do not have freedom of choice, they are allowed to "find their
own voice" only if it meets the approval of external powers.
Additionally,
Israel is now in violation of the 1994 Paris Protocol—which governs
the economic relations between Israel and the Palestinians—by halting
the monthly transfers to the PA of roughly $60 million in tax and
customs revenue collected on its behalf. Despite some arrangements
for Palestinian self-governance, in the final analysis the basic
needs of Palestinian civilians remain, according to the fourth Geneva
Convention, the responsibility of the occupying power, Israel.
Hamas, as new leader of the PA, is now being pressured by the removal
of those essential funds to accept three conditions before it will
be allowed to govern—it must recognize Israel, renounce violence
and accept all prior agreements signed by the Palestinian leadership
and Israel, including the "Road Map." As the weaker party
in the conflict, the Palestinians cannot afford to give up their
primary bargaining chip of recognizing Israel when Israel's borders
have not been mutually agreed upon and Israel has not, in turn,
agreed to end the occupation. In effect, by agreeing to the conditions
for continued funding, what the PA gets in exchange is only a continuation
of the status quo, which is an internationally subsidized military
occupation.
Certainly some
of Hamas's stated positions towards Israel are unacceptable in the
long run. However, the only way to change them is through negotiation.
By choosing to participate in government, the pragmatists of Hamas
have already shown they are willing to pursue their goals through
political means. Should Hamas be allowed to grapple with the difficulties
of governing, the international community can maintain leverage
to pursue a realistic policy of persuasion by engagement. Instead,
the U.S. and the EU are dictating ultimatums to the PA while turning
a blind eye to Israel's own unacceptable behavior, such as the more
than 200 artillery shells it's been firing daily into Gaza since
last week.
More broadly, Palestinians see that although Hamas is being asked
to accept the parameters of the road map without further negotiation,
Israel has never fully agreed to it. When the Israeli cabinet "approved"
the Road Map it simultaneously registered fourteen preconditions
and specifically exempted settlements and Jerusalem from its purview.
The Israeli government under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon abandoned
the Road Map by deciding to unilaterally determine the borders with
Palestinian areas. Current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is vigorously
pursuing this course.
How did it come
about that the U.S. and the EU can effectively veto the results
of the Palestinians' democratic elections by pulling the rug out
from under the PA? The Palestinian Authority was originally established
in the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians in the early
1990s as an interim body authorized to manage Palestinian affairs
until an agreement on ending the conflict and the occupation was
made through final status negotiations.
In other words, the PA took over responsibility from Israel for
much of the day-to-day governance of their still-occupied people.
The Palestinians themselves were then expected to curb Palestinian
resistance to occupation and provide civil services. With a weak
economy dependent on Israel and later mismanagement in the PA this
has only been possible with heavy subsidies from the U.S. and EU.
With no possibility of giving in to the sweeping demands of the
U.S., EU and Israel, cutting off funding can only further destroy
the already weak structures of Palestinian society. According to
the World Bank, personal income will decline 30 percent just this
year, poverty will increase to 67 percent of the population and
unemployment will nearly double to 39 percent. The PA has already
missed the April 1 pay date for their approximately 140,000 employees.
Government institutions could disintegrate, along with the many
schools and health services that they run. Water supply and sewage
treatment will also be affected. The decision to continue or increase
support for humanitarian efforts and non-governmental organizations
cannot compensate for discontinued PA services. At the end of the
day, they are no alternative to a functioning civil service, police
force and public administration.
Perhaps the U.S. and the EU hope that starving Hamas out of power
will bring the former Fatah leaders back. However, if the structure
of the PA begins to crumble, there will be no government for Fatah
to return to.
--
Michelle Woodward
is media coordinator and photo editor for the Middle East Research
and Information Project, publishers of Middle East Report,
in Washington, DC. www.merip.org
Militant
Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster
its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key
is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various
nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community
level, with clan and local leaders. Full
Story>>
Kurdish
parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As
no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every
available political lever to expand the territory and resources they
control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state.
But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts
quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the
Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full
Story>>
The
debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute
someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters
cry “Havoc!”
True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain
summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always
said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through
a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech
on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable,
adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless
getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he,
like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain
that withdrawal is simply
“cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full
Story>>
At
the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, presidential candidates
John McCain and Barack Obama competed over who would become the “candidate
for Israel.” The match came to a draw when both candidates
pledged undying and unconditional support for Israel. While their
support for “Israel right or wrong” was unquestionable,
at the end of all the commotion, the most pertinent question for
Americans and the world remained unasked and unanswered: Who is
the candidate for peace? Full
Story>>
Quick: Who is the strategic victor, to date, of the war in Iraq?
Nearly everyone outside the Bush administration (and perhaps some
within it) would answer: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The
catastrophe of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has bolstered the
clerical regime in Tehran, while souring ordinary Iranians on
the prospect of U.S.-delivered “democracy.” The occupation
has done so by emplacing Iranian-backed Shiite Islamists in power
in Baghdad and cooling the jets of those in Washington hoping to “shock
and awe” Iran's mullahs. Full
Story>>
Libya's Fat Cat The Topeka Capital-Journal January 11, 2008
Chris Toensing
Few
dictators in the world are sitting prettier in 2008 than Col.
Muammar Qaddafi of Libya. In a region full of potentates and presidents-for-life,
his reign is supreme. Having seized power in a 1969 coup, he has
ruled his country for longer than any other Arab head of state.
And now, as wintry January begins, the colonel has quietly completed
his journey back in from the cold. Full
Story>>
