Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Thursday
Mar122009

UPDATED: The Latest on the Long March in Pakistan

pakistan-flagUPDATE (8:30 p.m. GMT): Some of those detained by Pakistani security forces, including Munir Malik, have now been released.

Meanwhile, there is some intriguing political manoeuvring between the Zardari Government and the US. In a pointed signal that Washington was keeping its options open, US Ambassador Anne Patterson met with Nawaz Sharif on Thursday. Then US envoy Richard Holbrooke joined Patterson and President Zardari in a 20-minute phone conversation and "expressed concern over the political turmoil and arrest of political and lawyers....[The] US wanted continuity of democracy in Pakistan so that war against terrorism could be taken to its logical end." Holbrooke urged Zardari to "show restraint" in his handling of the political opposition.

The Long March, organised by lawyers to protest against the policies of the Zardari Government and its interference with the judiciary, began this afternoon in several Pakistan cities. It started in Lahore just over a half-hour after its start time of 12 noon, with 500 lawyers moving toward the High Court. They were soon joined by another 500 peoples, including some with the flags of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and Jamaat-i-Islami, the oldest religious party in Pakistan.

Later in the afternoon, another group of about 2000 protestors began moving from Karachi to Islamabad. The march was led by the lawyers’ movement, including former Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik and Sindh High Court Bar Association President Rasheed A. Rizvi, but also includes students and party members from PML (N), Jamaat-i-Islami, and Labour.

Malik, Rizvi, and several other march leaders were detained just over an hour later, and other arrests followed. The total detained is now estimated at 100, and police have baton-charged the marchers. Others have had their bus and car keys confiscated, stranding them at Karachi Toll Plaza.
Thursday
Mar122009

Muntazar al-Zaidi Update: 3 Years in Prison for Shoe-Throwing

al-zaidiThe "trial" of Iraqi journalist Muntazar al-Zaidi finally concluded today, almost three months after he threw his shoes at then-US President George W. Bush.

Unsurprisingly, al-Zaidi was sentenced to three years in jail. Unsurprising because  a prison stay of 15 years, which he could have received for "assaulting" a foreign leader, risked affronting global opinion, while on the other hand, his challenge to Bush could not go unpunished.

To try and keep a lid on protests, Iraqi authorities cleared the courtroom of family and journalists before the sentence was announced.
Thursday
Mar122009

The Latest from Israel-Palestine (12 March): Talks But No News

palestine-flag1In contrast to the barrage of stories surrounding last month's negotiating manoeuvres between Israel, Hamas, and Fatah last month, yesterday's resumption of "reconciliation" talks in Cairo between Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian factions went almost unnoticed by US and British media.

In part, that is because the discussions have moved from the high-profile drama of delegations setting out broad positions for their leadership of Palestine to the more mundane exchanges in five committees on security, economics, and political structure.

In part, however, it is because the drama of December/January war and clashes between the Palestianian Authority, led by Fatah, and Hamas has given way to glacial progress, if not stalemate. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas wants the support of quick decisions for his flagging political position. So of course it is in the interests of Hamas to delay until it gets acceptance of its stance on border crossing and security arrangements as well as clear recognition that it is the equal of the PA.

That Hamas approach is being bolstered by the latest opinion poll which shows, for the first time, that Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniya is ahead of Abbas amongst those who would vote in the next (still unscheduled) Presidential election for Palestine. The margin is small --- 47 to 45 percent --- but it is evidence that the PA and Fatah cannot rely on their base support in the West Bank to maintain leadership. Equally important, the trend since the Gaza War is sharply against Abbas: in December, he led Haniya by 48 to 38 percent.
Thursday
Mar122009

The US, Israel, and Charles Freeman: "A Chilling Effect" on Foreign Policy

freeman2One of the sharpest, strongest reactions to the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman (pictured) as head of the US National Intelligence Council has come from Stephen Walt in his blog on the Foreign Policy website. I generally share his views, but a reader offers further useful critique: "All good points, but a bit polemical. You know how this game works: I don't think Walt does Freeman any favours by framing the appointment as a victory over Zionists or as a balance to [the appointment of the State Department's Dennis] Ross. It would have been better to explain why Freeman was a worthy choice in the first place with his other experience and ability."

On Chas Freeman's withdrawal
STEPHEN WALT

First, for all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful "Israel lobby," or who admitted that it existed but didn't think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful "Saudi lobby," think again.

Second, this incident does not speak well for Barack Obama's principles, or even his political instincts. It is one thing to pander to various special interest groups while you're running for office -- everyone expects that sort of thing -- but it's another thing to let a group of bullies push you around in the first fifty days of your administration. But as Ben Smith noted in Politico, it's entirely consistent with most of Obama's behavior on this issue.

The decision to toss Freeman over the side tells the lobby (and others) that it doesn't have to worry about Barack getting tough with [past and future Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, or even that he’s willing to fight hard for his own people. Although AIPAC [American-Israeli Political Action Committee] has issued a pro forma denial that it had anything to do with it, well-placed friends in Washington have told me that it leaned hard on some key senators behind-the-scenes and is now bragging that Obama is a "pushover." Bottom line: Caving on Freeman was a blunder that could come back to haunt any subsequent effort to address the deteriorating situation in the region.

Third, and related to my second point, this incident reinforces my suspicion that the Democratic Party is in fact a party of wimps. I'm not talking about Congress, which has been in thrall to the lobby for decades, but about the new team in the Executive Branch. Don't they understand that you have to start your term in office by making it clear that people will pay a price if they cross you? Barack Obama won an historic election and has a clear mandate for change -- and that includes rethinking our failed Middle East policy -- and yet he wouldn't defend an appointment that didn't even require Senate confirmation. Why? See point No.1 above.

Of course, it's possible that I'm wrong here, and that Obama's team was actually being clever. Freeman's critics had to expend a lot of ammunition to kill a single appointment to what is ultimately not a direct policy-making position, and they undoubtedly ticked off a lot of people by doing so. When the real policy fights begin -- over the actual content of the NIEs [National Intelligence Estimates], over attacking Iran, and over the peace process itself -- they aren't likely to get much sympathy from [Director of National Intelligence Dennis] Blair and it is least conceivable that Obama will turn to them and say, "look, I gave you one early on, but now I'm going to do what's right for America." I don't really believe that will happen, but I'll be delighted if Obama proves me wrong.

Fourth, the worst aspect of the Freeman affair is the likelihood of a chilling effect on discourse in Washington, at precisely the time when we badly need a more open and wide-ranging discussion of our Middle East policy. As I noted earlier, this was one of the main reasons why the lobby went after Freeman so vehemently; in an era where more and more people are questioning Israel's behavior and questioning the merits of unconditional U.S. support, its hardline defenders felt they simply had to reinforce the de facto ban on honest discourse inside the Beltway. After forty-plus years of occupation, two wars in Lebanon, and the latest pummeling of Gaza, (not to mention [Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert's own comparison of Israel with South Africa), defenders of the "special relationship" can't win on facts and logic anymore. So they have to rely on raw political muscle and the silencing or marginalization of those with whom they disagree. In the short term, Freeman's fate is intended to send the message that if you want to move up in Washington, you had better make damn sure that nobody even suspects you might be an independent thinker on these issues.

This outcome is bad for everyone, including Israel. It means that policy debates in the United States will continue to be narrower than in other countries (including Israel itself), public discourse will be equally biased, and a lot of self-censorship will go on. America's Middle East policy will remain stuck in the same familiar rut, and even a well-intentioned individual like George Mitchell won't be able to bring the full weight of our influence to bear. At a time when Israel badly needs honest advice, nobody in Washington is going to offer it, lest they face the wrath of the same foolish ideologues who targeted Freeman. The likely result is further erosion in America's position in the Middle East, and more troubles for Israel as well.

Yet to those who defended Freeman’s appointment and challenged the lobby's smear campaign, I offer a fifth observation: do not lose heart. The silver lining in this sorry episode is that it was abundantly clear to everyone what was going on and who was behind it. In the past, the lobby was able to derail appointments quietly -- even pre-emptively -- but this fight took place in broad daylight. And Steve Rosen [of AIPAC], one of Freeman's chief tormentors, once admitted: "a lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." Slowly, the light is dawning and the lobby's negative influence is becoming more and more apparent, even if relatively few people have the guts to say so out loud.  But history will not be kind to the likes of [Senator] Charles Schumer, Jonathan Chait [of the New Republic], Steve Rosen et al, whose hidebound views are unintentionally undermining both U.S. and Israeli security.

Last but not least, I cannot help but be struck by how little confidence Freeman's critics seem to have in Israel itself. Apparently they believe that a country that recently celebrated its 60th birthday, whose per capita income ranks 29th in the world, that has several hundred nuclear weapons, and a military that is able to inflict more than 1,300 deaths on helpless Palestinians in a couple of weeks without much effort will nonetheless be at risk if someone who has criticized some Israeli policies (while defending its existence) were to chair the National Intelligence Council. The sad truth is that these individuals are deathly afraid of honest discourse here in the United States because deep down, they believe Israel cannot survive if it isn't umbilically attached to the United States. The irony is that people like me have more confidence in Israel than they do: I think Israel can survive and prosper if it has a normal relationship with the United States instead of "special" one. Indeed, I think a more normal relationship would be better for both countries. It appears they aren't so sure, and that is why they went after Charles Freeman.
Wednesday
Mar112009

Laughing While Economic Fires Are Burning: The Daily Show-CNBC Sequel

Yesterday, after financial "expert" turned laughing-stock Jim Cramer (Buy Bear Stearns! Buy!) took one more swing at Jon Stewart, who had mocked CNBC's ill-fated investment advice, I wrote, "While the stock market may be down, the glee factor for The Daily Show’s writers may have just gone up another few points."

Prediction confirmed: Jon Stewart completes Cramer's humiliation with the help of Dora the Explorer and Boots the Monkey: