Taking the Case to the Streets? Update on Muntazar al-Zaidi

The Iraqi Government's ploy to stem news coverage of Muntazar al-Zaidi's case, by releasing his supposed letter asking for a pardon, seems to have succeeded --- at least with the British and American press. There is nothing this morning except a summary in The Guardian, which leads with the confirmation by an Iraqi judge of al-Zaidi's beating.

The valuable McClatchy News Service, however, is onto what may be a significant development: the defense of al-Zaidi in the streets. It reports on a small but vocal demonstration outside Baghdad's Green Zone, joined by some politicians, al-Zaidi's family, and protesters from outside Baghdad. Other rallies took place throughout Iraq.



Whether this becomes a "shoe intifada", as an Iranian ayatollah colourfully labelled the protests, remains to be seen. Given the Iraqi Government's attempt to obscure the al-Zaidi case --- literally, as he still has not been seen by family and lawyers --- it may be the best hope to cut through the facade of "justice" around his detention.

Showdown for the al-Maliki Government? The Stakes are Raised

The manoeuvring inside the Iraqi Government just got very interesting:

Iraq’s interior minister said all 24 of his officers who had been arrested in a security crackdown this week would be released. And in a bold gesture of defiance, he publicly condemned his own government’s investigation, calling the accusations false and motivated purely by politics.

Beyond that information, all is muddle. The New York Times, for example, starts its analysis with the assertion that the Ministry of the Interior is "affiliated with members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a powerful Shiite party that is a rival to Dawa [the party of Prime Minister al-Maliki]". Hmm, given that ISCI is also part of the al-Maliki coalition, that far from clarifies matters.

Nor does the next sentence: "Some [Ministry of Interior] officers were members of the Baath Party before the American invasion." Hmm, again. The Baath Party of Saddam Hussein was Sunni, and since I don't think you can that ISCI is too well-disposed to the Baathists who jailed and killed its members.

So what do we have here? My snap reading was that the arrest of the 24 was a move to block a prominent Sunni role in the security services. However, it is significant that the Minister of the Interior who revoked the arrests, Jawad al-Bulani, is a Shi'a without affiliation to either Dawa or ISCI.

Soon after he became Minister in 2006, al-Bulani pledged to clean up the higher ranks of the Ministry, accused by many of supporting Shi'a sectarian killings of Sunnis: "Western officials and some Iraqi officials have said that he has lacked the political support to conduct the necessary purges, particularly at the upper levels of the ministry."

This time, however, it is al-Maliki's inner circle who have moved to purge, not al-Bulani. Does that mean --- as al-Bulani claims and as al-Maliki's American allies are privately saying --- that the motivation has little to do with corruption and sectarian violence and far more to do with manoeuvring before Iraqi elections in 2009?

I don't know. But I do know that al-Bolani's step is a major slap in the face to al-Maliki. If the 24 are reinstated in their posts next week, this Iraqi Government --- whatever its reasons for moving against the "early coup" --- will have been significantly weakened.

The Power of the Poppy: A Radical Solution for Afghanistan?

Writing for The Daily Beast, Reza Aslan, a fellow at the Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California, suggests:

The opium crisis in Afghanistan is not a drug enforcement problem, it is a national security issue: Licensing and regulating poppy cultivation would not only create stability and economic development, it could sap support for the Taliban and help win the war in Afghanistan.

How Opium Can Save Afghanistan
Afghanistan may be one the poorest countries in the world, but by legalizing and licensing opium production it could conceivably become the Saudi Arabia of morphine.

It is a measure of just how great a failure the counter-narcotics strategy in Afghanistan has been that, after six consecutive years of record growth in poppy production, including a staggering 20 percent increase last year alone, American and U.N. officials are actually patting themselves on the back over a 6 percent decline in 2008. “We are finally seeing the results of years of effort,” said Antonio Maria Costa, who heads the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime.

Yet this meager decline has almost nothing to do with international eradication efforts and everything to do with the law of supply and demand. As The New York Times reported in November, the Taliban have begun forcibly curbing poppy production and stockpiling opium in order to boost prices, which had fallen sharply due to a glut in the market. Indeed, Afghanistan has produced so much opium—between 90 to 95 percent of the world’s supply—that prices have dropped nearly 20 percent.

The truth is that the poppy eradication effort in Afghanistan, which consists mostly of hacking away at poppy fields with sticks and sickles, or spraying them from above with deadly herbicides, has been nothing short of a disaster. All this policy has managed to achieve (excluding that vaunted 6 percent decrease) is to alienate the Afghan people, fuel support for the Taliban, and further weaken the government of president Hamid Karzai, whose own brother has been linked to the illegal opium trade. Meanwhile, poppy cultivation is now such an entrenched part of Afghanistan's economy that in some parts of the country, opium is considered legal tender, replacing cash in day-to-day transactions.

In spite of all this, the U.S. State Department is planning to expand its crop eradication campaign. Last year, President Bush tapped the former ambassador to Columbia, William Wood, to become U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. Wood, whose nickname in Columbia was “Chemical Bill,” because of his enthusiasm for aerial fumigation, has been charged with implementing in Afghanistan the same crop eradication program that—despite five billion dollars and hundreds of tons of chemicals—has had little effect on Colombia's coca production.

It is time to admit that the struggle to end poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is a losing battle. The fact is that opium has long been Afghanistan’s sole successful export. Poppy seeds cost little to buy, can grow pretty much anywhere, and offer a huge return on a farmer’s investment. Only the Taliban has ever managed to significantly reduce opium production in the country (as it did during its late-1990s rule)—a feat managed by executing anyone caught growing poppies. It is no exaggeration to say that we have a better chance of defeating the Taliban than putting a dent in Afghanistan’s opium trade. So then, as the saying goes: if you can’t beat them, join them.

The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS), a policy think-tank with offices in London and Kabul, has proposed abandoning the futile eradication efforts in Afghanistan and instead licensing farmers to legally grow poppies for the production of medical morphine. This so-called “Poppy for Medicine” program is not as crazy as it may sound. Similar programs have already proven successful in Turkey and India, both of which were able to bring the illegal production of opium in their countries under control by licensing, regulating, and taxing poppy cultivation. And there is every reason to believe that the program could work even in a fractured country like Afghanistan. This is because the entire production process—from poppies to pills—would occur inside the village under strict control of village authorities, which, in Afghanistan, often trump the authority of the federal government. Licensed farmers would legally plant and cultivate poppy seeds. Factories built in the villages would transform the poppies into morphine tablets. The tablets would then be shipped off to Kabul, where they would be exported to the rest of the world. These rural village communities would experience significant economic development, and tax revenues would stream into Kabul. (The Taliban, which taxes poppy cultivation under their control at 10 percent, made $300 million dollars last year.)

The global demand for poppy-based medicine is as great as it is for oil. According to the International Narcotics Control Board, 80 percent of the world’s population currently faces a shortage of morphine; morphine prices have skyrocketed as a result. The ICOS estimates that Afghanistan could supply this market with all the morphine it needs, and at a price at least 55 percent lower than the current market average.

Thus far, the Bush Administration has balked at this idea, despite a warm reception from the Afghan government and some NATO allies. There is a fear in Washington that such a proposal would contradict America’s avowed “war on drugs.” But the opium crisis in Afghanistan is not a drug enforcement problem, it is a national security issue: Licensing and regulating poppy cultivation would not only create stability and economic development, it could sap support for the Taliban and help win the war in Afghanistan.

So which will it be? The War on Drugs? Or the War on Terror? When it comes to Afghanistan, we can only choose one.

Iraq, Shoes, and Video Games (Again)

A correspondent from Ireland confirms the skill of the readers of Enduring America in manoeuvring between important international affairs and important video games.

This time, the shoe-throwing tribute to George Bush is "Sock and Awe". A copycat site offers the intriguing info that the Number 4 location for players is the United Arab Emirates, quite impressive given that country's small size. Number 2 is France, which is to be expected given its anti-American reputation.

But Number 1? The title of most anti-Bush Video Gamers goes to the United States.

The Bush Administration in a Word: Barneycam

Of all the blessings given to the world by the Bush Administration --- Afghanistan, Camp X-Ray, Torture, the handling of Katrina, the wishing away of climate change --- this may be the one that best sums up the legacy of Bush and Co. (Indeed, I understand the looped transmission of this video may be succeeding waterboarding as a favoured technique in Christmas Greetings to America's enemies/detainees/"unlawful combatants".)

President George, in one of his more lucid acting moments of recent times, tells Barney: "We're sprinting to the finish."

Not fast enough, son. Not fast enough.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hY7A4gZ1GVY[/youtube]