Category Archives: United States

Foreign Affairs, Government, Iran, Lebanon, Middle East, Syria, United States

The conflict in Syria spills over into Beirut…

Intro: The urgency of getting all sides to the conflict around the negotiating table

The double bomb attack on the Iranian Embassy in Lebanon’s capital city of Beirut marks a horrifying and sinister escalation of the Syrian conflict. Not since 1999 has a suicide bomber struck a non-military target in Lebanon. This is also the first time that the Iranian Embassy has been attacked, although Shia civilians in southern Beirut have been regularly targeted. The Al-Qaeda affiliated Abdullah Azzam Brigades claim to be behind the atrocity and, if true, the explosions bring an apocalypse in the region that much closer – that fearful day when Lebanon is fully swallowed up in the Syrian civil war.

Since the first uprisings against the regime of Bashar Al-Assad in the spring of 2011, many tens of thousands of people have died. But the war itself, and the subsequent refugee crisis it has caused, with millions of people displaced, reaps less attention from the outside world as time goes on.

Diplomatically, many will be expressing a sigh of relief that the West decided against taking military action over Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Evidently, the risk of how the West almost became embroiled in yet another Middle Eastern quandary is clearer to see now and was simply too high. Today, the United States is involved in delicate political and diplomatic negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programmes which may even produce a preliminary deal as early as this week. While much emphasis is being placed on a deal, not even this should distract global attention from the urgency of stopping the Syrian war.

The timing of the attack may be related to the fact that Assad’s forces are gaining ground, with the capture in recent days of a strategic village and the fall of a key rebel commander. The Beirut bombs are a clear and stark reminder that the Sunni rebellion can still strike back with relative impunity. That aside, and with the US so heavily involved diplomatically elsewhere, the risk now is that Assad and his supporters will believe they can win the war by military means. That, though, is not a view that can be allowed to prevail. Assad and his regime has committed too many crimes for the world to sit back and allow the violent anarchy to continue, mayhem which is steadily erupting inside Lebanon and Turkey as time goes on.

The urgency of getting all sides to the conflict around the negotiating table to thrash out a peace deal must now be a priority in light of the Beirut bombs.

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Afghanistan is a booming narco-state…

Intro: Afghanistan is an affluent narcotic state despite the country being invaded to liberate it from the drugs trade

Prior to the war in Afghanistan, the then British prime minister, Tony Blair, said that one of the most compelling reasons for going to war was to curtail the trade in narcotic drugs such as heroin and opium. However, if one was to examine the facts it would be shown that the Taliban government had already started to deactivate Afghanistan’s drugs trade. In 2000, the Taleban were the ruling authority in the country and had declared the heroin trade as being ‘un-Islamic’. Following that decree the fundamentalist regime managed to reduce production by 99 per cent in the areas that it controlled. Yet, by contrast, the war with the West has witnessed a lucrative market for Afghan’s poppy farmers. After more than 12 years of fighting – which has cost Britain dear in terms of lost lives and resources expended – opium production in Afghanistan is at a record high. The United Nations drugs agency says that the area under cultivation rose by 36 per cent in 2013 and that Afghanistan now provides 90 per cent of the world’s heroin. The country Britain invaded partly to liberate it from the drugs trade has become a flourishing and affluent narcotic-state.

Was there a way in which this now booming trade could have been stopped? Arguably, if the West had put all its resources and efforts into eradication the likelihood of crushing the drugs trade in Afghanistan  would have been high. Unless that task is approached with the ruthless methods and barbarism of the Taliban, any other approach would likely falter. The planting of an alternative crop may have been another consideration but even that would have been troublesome because Afghanistan’s environment makes it perfect for poppy cultivation but inhospitable to almost anything else.

A genuine alternative, however, might be to turn the situation to the world’s advantage. Four years into the Afghan campaign, the Senlis Council, a think tank, suggested buying the crop and using it to manufacture palliative medicines for Western consumers – turning Afghanistan’s poppy farmers into legitimate businessmen.

If we consider that opium poppies are already grown under strict legal controls in India, and also in Britain, the idea is not as radical as it might sound. The world has a shortage of pharmaceutical painkillers, such as morphine and codeine, and the Afghan farmers could easily meet that demand. Whether the country has the ability to police such an ambitious programme, though, does raise doubts. One thing above all else is certain: the West has lost its war on the poppy.

Standard
European Union, Government, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Negotiations between Iran and the West on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions…

A NEED FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

Expectations of an agreement over the Iranian nuclear programme have been high ever since the recent trip to Washington by Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, who declared to the United Nations he wanted better relations with the West. It is little surprise, however, that such a realisation has not been met. The immense difficulties facing the negotiations in Geneva in the last few days faded into the background amid speculation of a ‘historic deal’ and an imminent end to decades of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding. The Geneva talks concluded last weekend without any deal in sight, with many analysts branding the discussions a failure.

Related:

There is still some cause for optimism. Since Mr Rouhani took over the Iranian presidency from the bellicose and belligerent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June, the rhetoric emanating from Tehran has been markedly softened in tone and style. With international sanctions – both EU and US – biting hard on ordinary Iranians, domestic pressure for a deal on its nuclear programme with the West cannot be ignored. Particularly so given that inflation is running at 40 per cent, and that Iran’s economy has shrunk by more than 5 per cent since the imposition of sanctions took effect. The number of families below the poverty line has doubled to four in ten, exasperated by several currency devaluations that have had an adverse effect on the net worth of many Iranian families. Assets have depreciated and net incomes have been seriously eroded. Focusing minds, too, is the threat of Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not to mention the Islamic Republic’s pivotal position in a volatile and unstable region, including that of Syria.

The difficulties for the West in reaching a mutual agreement with Tehran still rest upon two primary sticking points. One is the question about the future of the heavy-water reactor being built at Arak. The other is what to do with Iran’s existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and centrifuges. Tehran appears determined to retain its ‘rights to enrichment’ (enriched uranium is required and allowed for its medical programmes), though the international community, not unreasonably, remains sceptical. Enriching uranium to weapons grade material that would fit into the head of a ballistic missile is easily enough done.

Yet, we are far from stalemate. Just as those predicting immediate success were unduly hasty, so are those now rendering and calling for defeat. John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, spent eight hours at the negotiating table, the longest such high-level talks between the US and Iran since 1979 – no small achievement in itself. Mr Kerry’s assertion that ‘we are closer now than when we came’ cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. With negotiations to restart in a week’s time – albeit between diplomats rather than foreign ministers – the process is far from over.

Coupled into the equation is the danger of the moment. Barack Obama’s critics in Congress, largely fuelled by Israeli’s inflammatory opposition to a deal, are already pushing for more sanctions. In Iran, the frustration of public demands for immediate relief could well erode support for further discussions that many Iranians feel infringe on national sovereignty. Apparent divisions in the international community, exemplified by France’s outspoken warnings about a ‘fool’s game’ before the Geneva talks were concluded, will not help either.

Perseverance in seeking a deal along current lines remains key as no other constructive alternative exists, but in reaching an agreement concessions will be required from both sides. The notion that the Islamic Republic continues with some degree of uranium enrichment may not be palatable and will be contested by those who remain deeply sceptical of Iran’s objectives. However, it is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and – in return for close controls and even closer oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – it is a better and plausible option than either accepting an Iran with nuclear weapons or by attempting to bomb them out of existence.

A deal with Iran may have a high price, but the value will be enormous. This will not only patch up one of the world’s most dangerous and intractable disputes but, an accord between Iran and the West could also help to resolve any number of issues bedevilling the Middle East, not least the internecine civil war and bloody conflict in Syria.

Standard