Palestine: Abbas "I Promise, No Third Intifada"

Last week, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spoke with the Wall Street Journal's Charles Levinson about a wide range of issues including : the future of peace talks with Israel and the Obama Administration's role; Israeli settlements; boycotts; the possibility of a third Intifada; alleged CIA links to Palestinian "torture"; and the Goldstone Report on Gaza.

Abbas' message in the interview was that he was siding with a "wait and see" approach following his re-election as the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Abbas indicated that, with the international community supporting the Palestinian Authority on the status of the settlements and Jerusalem, there was no need for a call to a third Intifada - although he would like to see more pressure from Washington on Tel Aviv.

The Anniversary of the Gaza War: Who “Won” after Operation Cast Lead?

The Full Transcript:

Q - A recent opinion poll shows that 57% of Palestinians support you over Hamas, which got just 37% support, a big change over polls from just two months ago. The Fatah and PLO leaderships have similarly asked you to remain in office. So can you start by explaining why you decided not to run for reelection?

A - The decision I took had a number of reasons.

The main reason is the stopping of the peace process and [Benjamin] Netanyahu's refusal to stop the settlements according to the road map and his refusal to recognize UN resolutions 242 and 338 as the framework of the negotiations. That is what was agreed in the road map. We negotiated with [Ehud] Olmert on this basis under the supervision of the Americans. Then Netanyahu came and rejected all this, even though the American government, as we heard from [Barack] Obama himself, said that Israel must stop all its building in the settlements including natural growth. The moratorium on settlements Netanyahu did exempts Jerusalem, and 3,000 residential units and public buildings. So for this reason we felt the horizon for the political process that we promised our people wasn't there.

There are also other reasons connected to the Palestinian reconciliation efforts. We signed this agreement and everybody agreed and then Hamas reneged on its agreement. They then asked to have the signing in Damascus, meaning Hamas was not against the contents of the agreement but it just wants to change the place of the signing from Egypt to Damascus, which we refused. The Goldstone issue I consider secondary, but it is also among the important issues. We felt there was an unjust campaign against us and the Palestinian Authority without any justification. For that I decided that I will not run in the elections. We are waiting for the new elections and someone other than me will run.

Q - Who do you want to run after you? The same poll showed that Marwan Barghouti enjoyed the support of 67% of Palestinians. Do you think Marwan could be a good leader of the Palestinian people or would you prefer to see someone else succeed you?

A - I don't have a candidate. It's not for me to tell the Palestinian people to elect a specific person. It's for the Palestinian people to decide. If Marwan runs, he is a man who has a good reputation and a good history of resistance, and it's not out of the question that he will run. But the matter is in the hands of the voters, not in my hand, and the door is open for anyone to run. I don't have a candidate.

Q - It appears Mr. Netanyahu has not accepted your conditions for resuming direct negotiations. As long as there are no talks, then what is your strategy for advancing the Palestinians toward statehood?

A - First, let me say that these aren't preconditions. We don't have conditions to go to negotiations. There is a road map binding on all and that all agreed to. There are obligations to Israel and obligations for the Palestinians. There is a part [of the road map] that talks about an independent Palestinian state and ending the occupation of '67. The Arab peace initiative also became a main part of the road map. It calls on Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories and 57 Arab and Islamic countries will normalize relations with Israel.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu says 'I call on Abbas to negotiate, but he has to understand that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, that's not up for discussion. The refugees -- there will be no talk about them at all. He has to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.' So who is putting conditions. I'm not putting them. He is putting conditions. Now the ball is in the international community's court and specifically in America's court. It should see how Europe addressed the problem. Europe stressed that the Palestinians' lands of 1967 are occupied lands, and east Jerusalem is occupied and at Annapolis all the states participating without exception called for stopping the expansion of settlements. The international community supports our position, and so it's up to them to move to apply international law and not to take a position just to take a position.

Q - So are you just waiting for the international community to step in and solve the problem for you or do you have your own strategy?

A - We have experience of direct negotiations with Israel. We had direct negotiations with Israel in January 1993, leading to the Oslo Agreement. Not a single other country had anything to do with that, not America, Russia, Europe or others. The Israeli administration at that time led by Yitzhak Rabin desired peace. If I see that Netanyahu is interested in peace, I would have no problem negotiating with him. The negotiations with Olmert were all direct between him and me. The Americans didn't get involved. I am not against direct negotiations, but on what basis do we go to negotiations. I am not putting conditions.

Q - So as long as you're not negotiating for a Palestinian state, what is your plan?

A - Today it's very important to understand the relations between us and the Israelis are continuing with all the arms of the Israeli government without exception, defense, security, water, health. With all the ministries, without exception, the contacts are ongoing. The only thing that isn't continuing are the political negotiations. We are now waiting for what is the American position. [George] Mitchell will come in the beginning of next month and we will see what will happen. We are waiting for the Quartet meeting in Moscow and we will see what comes out of that. There is political movement, but the results of this haven't yet come out.

We are open to all possibilities. Any party that wants to play a role in the peace process we are willing to hear them out. And then we'll decide. But we want someone to move. When the Americans talk about indirect negotiations between us and the Israelis, we want to know what it is they mean exactly. I've heard this talk about indirect negotations, but until I hear something concrete from the American side, I can't judge.

Q - You have criticized the Obama administration's role in the peace process recently. What is your opinion of the role Obama has played in the peace process thus far?

A - We still have hope that Obama can play a role in the political process. Maybe we don't agree with him on the recent issue that we come to negotiations on the basis of the Israeli moratorium. We don't agree with that. But that doesn't mean we have lost hope in the American administration or President Obama. We are still seeing that President Obama can do something.

Q - Do you stand by the comments you made to a South American newspaper during your visit there recently that President Obama has done nothing for Mideast Peace?

A - I didn't say that. What I said was that what has happened we are not agreeing with, but he's still in the first year of his presidency and we have to wait and judge him after. The difference between him and past U.S. presidents is that from the beginning of his term he started to take up the peace process and that's a positive sign. We will not judge him from the beginning and say forget it, he's hopeless.

Q - What do you want from Obama?

A - I want him to put the peace process on the track. Until now, I don't think they have succeeded. But the American administration says establishing a Palestinian state is an American strategic interest and also at the same time it will protect Israel. They have to convince the two sides to solve this. They have to come and say this is the end game and pressure the Israeli government to accept it. Why don't they pressure the Israeli government. The Israeli government sometimes needs someone to come and help it see its own interests and the interests of its people.

Q - How?

A - I want him to declare the framework for negotiations and to ask Israel to stop the settlements along the lines of what I presented to the Israeli Minister of Defense. I told the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, that he can do an undeclared but total moratorium for five months without announcing it, without publicity, just tell the Americans. But it must be a total freeze that includes East Jerusalem.

Q - Obama tried to ask the Israelis for a complete freeze…

A - …and he couldn't do that. He needs to be fair, meaning, based on international law ask both sides to implement their obligations. I'll give you an example. When we began to implement the road map they were always asking me, do this, do that, do this. We have done everything that was required of us under the first stage of the road map. We said to the Americans, now tell the Israelis to do their parts. And they said we will ask them. And what happened in the end is we did everything that was asked of us and the Israelis didn't do a single thing. As long as something clear is asked of me and I did it, then America should now ask Israel to do its part. That hasn't happened and that's why I'm not running for reelection.

Q - And you're serious about this. No way you're going to reconsider?

A - This is, God willing, very serious.

Q - And if there are no elections, will you remain in power or will you resign?

A - This is an important point. I said that I will not run in the elections. I will exert all possible efforts to make sure there are elections. In the Egyptian brokered accord there is total agreement with all the factions that there should be elections on June 28. If tomorrow, Hamas signs this agreement, then there will be elections on June 28. There is no problem with holding elections. If there is no hope for any sort of elections, then I have other options. What are those other options? I'm not talking about them yet.

Q - Many people are talking about the possibility of a third intifada erupting. Is this just talk, or is this a real possibility and what would have to happen for this to happen?

A - I will not allow a new intifada. As long as I'm in office, I will not allow anybody to start a new intifada. Never never. But if I leave, it's no longer my responsibility and I can't make any guarantees. It could happen. It's not my business to follow up. I promise and I can do. And I already promised and I did during the invasion of Gaza. At that time everybody asked me to go to a third intifada, but I prevented anybody from doing it.

The evidence is that in three years it hasn't happened. The evidence is that every day there are provocations and there hasn't been a violent response. So I have control of matters and I am confident that I can control things as long as I'm in office.

Q - This means stepping down carries a big responsibility with it, that by stepping down you could be responsible for a new round of violence.

A - It could happen. It will pain me. I will be very angry if something happens in the future because it's not the proper act to be done by the Palestinian people. But at that time it's not my responsibility. I am responsible as long as I am in office. The moment I leave it's not my responsibility.

Q - You said this isn't proper for the Palestinian people? Why are you against violence?

A - Since the 1970s, I believed in peace, and I worked for peace and for the relations and the contacts between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Until now I am convinced that peace is the only choice for both sides, for the Palestinians and the Israelis. The other choice is destructive.

From the first day of the intifada I said I am against this intifada. From the first day and I didn't change my mind. When I ran in the elections I said publicly, I am against the armed intifada, I am against the futile rockets and I am for peace. If you want to elect me, okay, if you don't, it doesn't matter.

Q - At the PLO conference last week and again tonight you seem more comfortable, more relaxed.

A - Now I am relaxed. I know what I will do. I told everybody about my intentions. And now I am relaxed.

Q - We appear to be close to a prisoner swap deal for Gilad Shalit. How will this deal impact the domestic Palestinian political stage?

A - Shalit, the most famous soldier around the world. I am for this deal. We have to get rid of this fast. This man should return back to his family and at the same time at least 1,000 prisoners will be released and come back to their families. It's not important whether Hamas concluded this deal or anybody else. At the end the result is there are some people who will go back to their families and this deal will give hope to the others to be released. I don't think it will have a big effect on the Palestinian political stage. In the Palestinian society everybody will be happy with it. Maybe it will give Hamas some popularity. For me that doesn't matter. Let them get whatever they want to get. But at the end some people will be happy with this deal.

Q - There have been a number of reports lately, from human rights groups, and even from the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Interior, alleging that prisoners in Palestinian custody have been mistreated or tortured, and some have even died as a result. Another report has alleged the CIA is connected to these government bodies allegedly responsible for this. Is there truth to these complaints? What is the CIA's exact relationship to the Palestinian intelligence apparatus?

A - We have no relationship with the CIA at all. We have a relationship with the State Department. The State Department sends us some Americans to train and rebuild the Palestinian security apparatuses. That's it. There is not any kind of cooperation with the CIA. We have no connection to the CIA. There is U.S. training of our forces. We don't deny that at all. But not just American. Russia, and Jordan and France and many countries help in training us. And Dayton's team is from a number of countries, not just America. America gives us nothing but training. If we want weapons we have to buy it or bring it as grants from other countries to Jordan and we keep it in Jordan until we have the permission from the Israeli side to import it. If we do not have this permission we cannot bring even one single bullet. In other words, we are not smuggling anything.

Q - What is the message you want to direct to the Israeli people?

A - If we reach a final solution, we will drop all kinds of other demands. The second point is, there will be a third party on our territories agreed upon by the Israelis and the Palestinians. From where? Maybe NATO, the Americans, the Europeans, whatever they want. They will be there for a while to preserve the borders and keep it under control so the Israelis will be safe.

Beside that, they tried us and we are working very hard to preserve our own security and also to prevent anybody from committing any acts against the Israelis. On the other hand, every day there is an invasion in one of our cities from the Israeli army and from the settlers themselves. Last time they burned a mosque in one of our villages. Every day they go to Jerusalem either to occupy some of our houses or to demolish houses. There is no cooperation between the Israelis and us in this area. They do not help us.

We are saying to the Israelis: We are serious in building peace with you, in building a Palestinian state that lives side by side with Israel on the '67 borders in peace and stability. And we also, through the Arab peace initiative, will bring 57 Arab and Islamic countries to recognize you. I think this is an historic opportunity for the Israeli people to live in peace. I know that 70 percent of the Israeli population are for peace, but if your government doesn't want peace, nobody knows what will happen, and how the situation will get worse. And we don't want this. This is an opportunity to be seized. This is my message for the Israeli people.

Q - What do you want to say in response to those who criticized you for agreeing to delay a vote on the Goldstone report?

A - Goldstone, when he came to investigate, Hamas attacked him, saying he was a Zionist Jew and that he was biased against the Palestinian people. We welcomed him because we wanted the world to know who attacked the Palestinian people so they could be held accountable. Goldstone put out a 575-page report and it went to Geneva to the human rights council and the matter was discussed there. The council didn't reach a decision so it was decided to refer it to the next session, so I agreed. And the world turned upside down saying I had sold the Palestinian cause, and the world and the media, and the satellite channels all attacked us. Even the Israelis attacked us. After these attacks, I decided to return the matter to the human rights council and that's what I did. Now it is at the general assembly. The accusation that I am the one who alone agreed to delay it is not true.

Q - You have encouraged recently Palestinians to boycott products made in the settlements, but many of your Palestinian critics would like to see you go further in leading a non-violent resistance movement against Israel. Do you support those who are calling for a broader boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel?

A - This is our right to boycott the settlements. The settlements are taking our land and selling the products to the world so we ask the world not to buy these products. These are our rights. The people of Bilin and Nilin go out and protest peacefully against the wall. I am with any peaceful protest that expresses the opinion of the people. I support this. But I am against the bullets and the rockets. We are asking every day the European countries and the world to stop buying these products and not to buy these products. But we never said boycott Israel. We never boycotted Israel. We have contacts with them every day. We buy from them electricity, water, and even the air. We buy air! They sell us air! Truly, the air. Cell phone frequencies. And they haggle with us over the air. 'We'll give 3.1 of air' they say, and we say 'no we want 3.8,' and they say 'no way you'll get .8 of air.' AIR!

Q - People say you aren't prepared to make concessions for peace and they say that if you were, you wouldn't have rejected the Olmert peace offer. Is this true?

A - Never. Not true. We were negotiating, and remained negotiating until the last day of the Bush administration. Condoleezza Rice suggested we meet again on January 3 in Washington to seize the last chance, and we agreed to that, but in that time, there was the attack on Gaza, and still I agreed to go, but the Israeli administration said it can't do it in these circumstances.

Q - Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu wants to make peace with you?
I can't say Netanyahu doesn't want peace, I can't see what's inside him, but his policy suggests he doesn't. We have to keep hope. If we say there is no hope then we put our people in a corner. I'm prepared to wait.

Q - If and when you step down as president, how do you think people will remember your term? What accomplishments are you proud of, and what do you regret not having accomplished?

A - The people will decide what I did and what I didn't do. They will decide if I succeeded or if I failed. I am proud of my role in the Oslo accords and for sticking to peace and maintaining law and order in the West Bank. I am proud the economy is developing, and the social situation is improving. I reached an agreement to reconcile with Hamas but Hamas backed out. I did all that I can do. What I couldn't do is conclude a peace treaty with the Israelis. But that's not due to my mistake. Maybe it's the other side's mistake. I want people to know that I have held to the core values the PLO adopted in 1988 and never compromised them. I never conceded on '67 borders, or on East Jerusalem as the capital, and have always insisted on the rights of refugees, and that the problem be solved in accordance with the Arab peace initaitve. But, peace with Israel. I couldn't reach this. It's not my fault.

Afghanistan: A Few Numbers You Might Want to Know About the War

Jeremy Scahill of Rebel Reports offers some insight into the size and nature of Mr Obama's War:

A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee in the US Congress] on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone -- that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.



In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo released by McCaskill’s staff, “From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan.  During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”

At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.

Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.”

A former USAID official, Michael Walsh, the former director of USAID’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance and Chief Acquisition Officer, told the Commission that many USAID staff are “administering huge awards with limited knowledge of or experience with the rules and regulations.” According to one USAID official, the agency is “sending too much money, too fast with too few people looking over how it is spent.” As a result, the agency does not “know … where the money is going.”

The Obama administration is continuing the Bush-era policy of hiring contractors to oversee contractors. According to the McCaskill memo:

In Afghanistan, USAID is relying on contractors to provide oversight of its large reconstruction and development projects.  According to information provided to the Subcommittee, International Relief and Development (IRD) was awarded a five-year contract in 2006 to oversee the $1.4 billion infrastructure contract awarded to a joint venture of the Louis Berger Group and Black and Veatch Special Projects.  USAID has also awarded a contract Checci and Company to provide support for contracts in Afghanistan.

The private security industry and the US government have pointed to the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker(SPOT) as evidence of greater government oversight of contractor activities. But McCaskill’s subcommittee found that system utterly lacking, stating: “The Subcommittee obtained current SPOT data showing that there are currently 1,123 State Department contractors and no USAID contractors working in Afghanistan.” Remember, there are officially 14,000 USAID contractors and the official monitoring and tracking system found none of these people and less than half of the State Department contractors.

As for waste and abuse, the subcommittee says that the Defense Contract Audit Agency identified more than $950 million in questioned and unsupported costs submitted by Defense Department contracts for work in Afghanistan. That’s 16% of the total contract dollars reviewed.

This Weekend on EA (19/20 December)

Iran: Sunday's news has been dominated by the sudden death of 87 year-old Grand Ayatollah Montazeri and how the Regime is trying to deal with the challenges posed by his death, first by belittling his memory;  then by criticising the cleric. All the latest news is, as always, in our live weblog.  Demonstrations have been taking place honouring Montazeri's memory --- we've posted video from Tehran and Najafabad. We also flashback with a video to Montazeri's denunciation of the Supreme Leader in a speech in October.

Mehdi Karoubi has  responded in an open letter to the threat of arrest made by the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani .

Austin Heap, one of the most respected and prominent activists on the Internet and Iran, has written for EA explaining the attack on Twitter by the Iranian Cyber Army.

We analyse the Regime's attempts to amass thousands of their own supporters to in Friday's rally in Tehran, and we have video of nightime rooftop protests in Tehran.

Palestine: Following the dramatic article in Thursday's Guardian newspaper, EA analyses the story behind CIA support of Palestinian "torture".

Lebanon: Is Lebanese PM Hariri seeking to improve Lebanese-Syrian relations to better defend Lebanon against Israel?

Israel & Turkey: Can Israel and Turkey repair relations and leave behind the Gaza War behind? EA's Ali Yenidunya analyses.

Middle East: on Friday both the EU and the UN both criticised Israel over its settlement policy.

USA: One year into the Obama Presidency, EA's John Matlin writes in defence of the President.

Afghanistan Special: Exposing the Trail of Drug Money --- Who's Involved?

Julian Mercille, our colleague at University College Dublin, investigates the politics and conflict behind Afghanistan's drug production and profits, involving not only the Taliban but also other Afghan groups, the US military, and NATO forces:

As United States President Barack Obama and his advisors debated future troop levels for Afghanistan - which resulted in the decision to send an additional 30,000 troops - a new report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) muddied the water on one of the most important issues in the debate - the effects of Afghanistan's drug production.

The report, entitled "Addiction, Crime, and Insurgency: The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium," gives the false impression that the Taliban are the main culprits behind Afghanistan's skyrocketing drug production. It also implies that drugs are the main reason why the Taliban are gaining in strength, absolving the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of their own responsibility in fomenting the insurgency.

In fact, the United States and its Afghan allies bear a large share of responsibility for the drug industry's dramatic expansion since the invasion. Buried deep in the report, its authors admit that reduced levels of drug production would have little effect on the insurgency's vigor.

The following annotation rebuffs some of the report's main assertions, puts in perspective the Taliban's role in the opium economy and highlights US/NATO responsibility for its expansion and potential reduction.

Taliban insurgents draw some US$125 million annually from drugs, which is more money than 10 years ago, [and as a result] the perfect storm of drugs and terrorism, that has struck the Afghan/Pakistani border for years, may be heading towards Central Asia. A big part of the region could be engulfed in large-scale terrorism, endangering its massive energy resources.

These claims are supposed to make us shudder in the face of an impending narco-terrorist seizure of a large chunk of the world's energy resources. UNODC states that a decade ago the Taliban earned $85 million per year from drugs, but that since 2005 this figure has jumped to $125 million. Although this is pitched as a significant increase, the Taliban play a more minor role in the opium economy than UNODC would have us believe and drug money is probably a secondary source of funding for them. Indeed, the report estimates that only 10-15% of Taliban funding is drawn from drugs and 85% comes from "non-opium sources".

The total revenue generated by opiates within Afghanistan is about $3.4 billion per year. Of this figure, according to UNODC, the Taliban get only 4% of the sum. Farmers, meanwhile, get 21%.

And the remaining 75%? Al-Qaeda? No: The report specifies that it "does not appear to have a direct role in the Afghan opiates trade", although it may participate in "low-level drugs and/or arms smuggling" along the Pakistani border.

Instead, the remaining 75% is captured by government officials, the police, local and regional power brokers and traffickers - in short, many of the groups now supported (or tolerated) by the United States and NATO are important actors in the drug trade.

The New York Times recently revealed that Ahmed Wali Karzai, President Hamid Karzai's brother, has long been on the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA's) payroll, in addition to his probable shady dealings in drugs. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, as US and NATO forces have long supported warlords, commanders and illegal militias with a record of human-rights abuses and involvement in narcotics. A former CIA officer said, "Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade." According to a New York University report, General Nazri Mahmad, a warlord who "control[s] a significant portion of the province's lucrative opium industry," has the contract to provide security for the German Provincial Reconstruction Team.

UNODC insists on making the Taliban-drugs connection front-page news while not chasing with the same intensity those supported by Washington. The agency seems to be acting as an enabler of US/NATO policies in Afghanistan.

When I asked the UNODC official who supervised the report what percentage of total drug income in Afghanistan was captured by government officials, the reply was quick: "We don't do that, I don't know."

Instead of pointing a finger directly at the US/NATO-backed government, the report gives the impression that the problem lies mostly with rotten apples who threaten an otherwise well-intentioned government.

But the roots of Afghanistan's upsurge in drug production since 2001 are directly related to US policies and the government that was installed in the wake of the invasion. The United States attacked Afghanistan in 2001, in alliance with anti-Taliban warlords and drug lords, showering them with millions of dollars and other forms of support. The empowerment and enrichment of the warlords with whom the US allied itself enabled them to tax and protect opium traffickers, leading to the quick resumption of opium production after the hiatus of the 2000 Taliban ban.

To blame "corruption" and "criminals" for the state of affairs is to ignore the direct and predictable effects of US policies, which have simply followed a historical pattern of toleration and empowerment of local drug lords in the pursuit of broader foreign policy objectives, as Alfred McCoy and others have documented in detail.

Impunity for drug lords and warlords continues: a US Senate report noted in August that no major traffickers have been arrested in Afghanistan since 2006, and that successful prosecutions of significant traffickers are often overturned by a simple bribe or protection from above, revealing counter-narcotics efforts to be deficient at best.

Identifying drugs as the main cause behind Taliban advances absolves the US/NATO of their own responsibility in fomenting the insurgency: their very presence in the country, as well as their destructive attacks on civilians account for a good deal of the recent increase in popular support for the Taliban.

In fact, buried deep in the report, its authors admit that reducing drug production would have only "minimal impact on the insurgency's strategic threat". The Taliban receive "significant funding from private donors all over the world", a contribution which "dwarfs" drug money. Although the report will be publicized by many as a vindication of calls to target the opium economy in order to weaken the Taliban, the authors themselves are not convinced of the validity of this argument.

Of the $65 billion turnover of the global market for opiates, only 5-10% ($3-5 billion) is estimated to be laundered by informal banking systems. The rest is laundered through legal trade activities and the banking system.

This is an important claim that points to the enormous amounts of drug money swallowed by the world financial system, including Western banks.

The report says that over the last seven years (2002-2008), the transnational trade in Afghan opiates resulted in worldwide sales of $400-$500 billion (retail value). Only 5-10% of this is estimated to be laundered by informal banking systems (such as hawala). The remainder is laundered through the legal economy, and importantly, through Western banks.

In fact, Antonio Maria Costa was quoted as saying that drug money may have recently rescued some failing banks: "Interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities", and there were "signs that some banks were rescued in that way". "At a time of major bank failures, money doesn't smell, bankers seem to believe," he wrote in UNODC's 2009 World Drug Report (emphasis in original).

Afghanistan has the world monopoly of opium cultivation (92%), the raw material for the world's deadliest drug - heroin, [which is] causing up to 100,000 deaths per year.

Tobacco is the world's deadliest drug, not heroin, and kills about five million people every year. According to the World Health Organization, if present tobacco consumption patterns continue, the number of deaths will increase to 10 million by the year 2020. Some 70% of these will be in developing countries, which are the main target of the tobacco industry's marketing ploys. So why does the Taliban get more flak than tobacco companies?

The report estimates there are 16 million opiate users across the world, with the main consumer market being Europe, valued at $20 billion. Europeans are thus the main source of funding for the Afghan drug industry and their governments share a significant part of responsibility for failing to decrease demand and provide more treatment services within their own borders. Lowering drug use in Europe would contribute significantly to reducing the scale of the problem in Afghanistan.

Moreover, the report notes that NATO member Turkey is a "central hub" through which Afghan opiates reach Europe. Perhaps NATO should direct its efforts towards its own members before targeting the Taliban.

Some Taliban networks may be involved at the level of precursor procurement. These recent findings support the assertion that the Taliban network is more involved in drug trafficking than previously thought.

Yes, the Taliban surely take a cut out of the precursor trade (the chemicals needed to refine opium into products like heroin and morphine).

However, Western countries and some of their allies are also involved: The report identified "Europe, China and the Russian Federation" as "major acetic anhydride sources for Afghanistan". For instance, 220 liters of acetic anhydride were intercepted this year at Kabul airport, apparently originating from France. In recent years, chemicals have also been shipped from or via the Republic of Korea and UNODC's 2008 Afghan Opium Survey pointed to Germany as a source of precursors.

It is unclear what the total value of the Afghan trade in chemical precursors is, but from the report's data it can be inferred that the retail value of just one precursor, acetic anhydride, was about $450 million this year. Part of that money goes back to Western chemical corporations in the form of profits. Tighter safeguards should be in place on these products.

Areas of opium poppy cultivation and insecurity correlate geographically. In 2008, 98% of opium poppy cultivation took place in southern and western Afghanistan, the least secure regions.

UNODC associates drugs with the Taliban by pointing to the fact that most poppy cultivation takes places in regions where the Taliban are concentrated. Maps show "poppy-free" provinces in the north and a concentration of cultivation in the southern provinces, linking the Taliban with drugs.

It is true that cultivation is concentrated in the south, but such maps obscure the fact that there is plenty of drug money in the north, a region over which the Afghan government has more control. For instance, Balkh province may be poppy-free, but its center, Mazar-i Sharif, is awash in drug money. Nangarhar was also poppy-free in 2008, although it still remains a province where a large amount of opiates is trafficked.

Some Western officials are now implying that political elites in northern Afghanistan are engaging in successful counter-narcotics while the southern drug economy expands. But the fact is that although the commanders who control northern Afghanistan today may have eliminated cultivation, none have moved against trafficking. Most of them continue to profit from it, and some are believed to have become millionaires.

Palestine Inside Line: Hamas Moves to "Liberation" of West Bank from Abbas and Israel

On Monday afternoon, during the celebration of Hamas's 22nd anniversary, Gazan Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said that gaining control of the Gaza Strip was "just a step toward liberating all of Palestine".



Criticising Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Obama Administration, Haniya said, "This movement liberated the Gaza Strip with the help of the militant factions. Brothers and sisters, we will not be satisfied with Gaza. Hamas looks toward the whole of Palestine."

Palestine Inside Line: Abbas Term Extended Indefinitely
Israel-Palestine Analysis: Did Britain Just Endorse Israel’s “Moral” War in Gaza?

This is not the end of the "liberation" story. A day before the celebration in the Gaza Strip, Hamas political director Khaled Meshaal was in Tehran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised the "resistance" of Hamas and welcomed the "liberation project of the Palestinian lands from Israel". Ahmadinejad said:

Today Palestine is the symbol of the global front of freedom-seekers and resistance. The government and the people of Iran will always stand by the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people. Palestinians will continue resistance against Israel until their land is liberated.

And Hamas was quick to seize on an opportunity to claim its leadership of all of Palestine. Responding the PLO Central Council's resolution calling on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to stay in power until new elections are held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Hamas declared that the resolution was "illegal" and a "coup against the Palestinian constitution".

Hamas's "liberation" mission is turning to the West Bank, whose leadership is seen as the "collaborator" of the main enemy, Israel. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum pressed the case in the response to the PLO announcement:

This is an illegal decision and a political bribe to cover up for the fact that Abbas's term in office had expired a long time ago. Abbas's term in office expired and no one has the right to extend his mandate.