The Tharwa Review

CIVILIANS DRIVEN FROM GARMSIR BY FIGHTING

Helmand governor says major international operation is causing humanitarian crisis.
By Aziz Ahmad Tassal and Mohammad Ilyas Dayee in Helmand, Sefatullah Zahidi in Garmsir, and Abaceen Nasimi in Kabul

Much of the formerly bustling district of Garmsir in southern Helmand province now resembles a ghost town, with villages largely emptied of their populations.

An IWPR reporter visited one village, Loy Kalai, from which almost 4,000 families had fled. More than half the houses were destroyed, and abandoned farm animals were beginning to die.

The smell of decay hung over the area. In one house, a man who had died from shrapnel wounds lay unburied.

"I could not believe what I was seeing," a resident who witnessed the scene told IWPR. "It was a tragedy."

Garmsir district is the focus of a large-scale NATO operation codenamed "Azada Wosa" ("Be Free" in Pashto), launched on April 28 and led by a 2,400-strong United States Marine Expeditionary Unit which arrived in Afghanistan earlier this spring.

Supported by troops from NATO's International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, the Marines have spent the last month engaged in a fierce battle with the Taleban in southern Helmand province, attempting to drive the insurgents out of territory they have held these past two years.

TURKEY AND IRAQI KURDS TURN OVER NEW LEAF?

Business appears to trump political differences as long-standing foes build closer ties.
By Azeez Mahmood in Sulaimaniyah

Kurdish leaders are making efforts to build stronger ties with Turkey, in order to boost trade, say analysts

However, some argue that Turkey is only interested in better relations to stem the threat posed by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, which is based in northern Iraq, and warn that increased cooperation will not be popular among Iraqi Kurds.

Turkish and Kurdish officials held their first meeting earlier this month, hosted by Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, during which they discussed how to deal with the PKK, as well as Turkish investment in Kurdistan, according to sources close to Kurdish officials.

Also attending the meeting, which was held in Baghdad on May 1, were Kurdistan Regional Government, KRG, prime minister Nechirvan Barzani, Ahmet Davudoglu, chief foreign policy adviser for Turkish prime minister Recep Tayip Erdogan, Turkish special envoy for Iraq Murat Ozcelik, and Turkey's ambassador to Baghdad Derya Kanbay.

Since 1984, the PKK and Turkey have engaged in bloody battles that have claimed thousands of lives in southeast Turkey and northern Iraq. Human rights groups accuse Ankara of oppressing Kurds and other minorities.

Iraqi Kurdish and Turkish leaders have sparred in the past over the PKK’s presence in the north of Iraq. Turkey has long demanded that Iraq expel the group, which is considered a terrorist organisation by both Ankara and Washington.

Zionism and power

Rabbi Michael Cohen

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania—Within the rubric of national sovereignty come many challenges; the use of power is paramount to how a nation defines itself.

One raison d'être for the Zionist movement was the reintroduction of Jewish might back into the vocabulary of world history. Zionism, as well as pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism, were influenced by the late 18th century ideas of democracy and liberty promoted in the American and French revolutions. In addition, early 18th century romanticism and mid-19th century modern nationalism helped the development of these parallel nationalisms in the Middle East.

Woven into this was Zionist thinking that 2,000 years of the Jewish people being stateless and by extension powerless was no longer tenable. The Jewish longing to return to Zion had been carried in Jewish liturgy and ritual since the end of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel following the Bar-Kochba Revolt of 135 CE, and the changing of the name of Israel to Palestine by the Romans in an attempt to cut off all Jewish connections to the land.

The reestablishment of that sovereignty 60 years ago, following the catastrophic destruction of one-third of the world's Jewish population by the Nazis and their collaborators, reconstituted in the state of Israel sovereign Jewish power. That Jewish power allowed Israel to win the war of independence, which began immediately after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence on 14 May 1948.

Misreading the messenger

Lawrence Pintak, Jeremy Ginges and Nicholas Felton

CAIRO and NEW YORK—"Arabic TV does not do our country justice," President George W. Bush complained in early 2006, calling it a purveyor of "propaganda" that "just isn't right, it isn't fair, and it doesn't give people the impression of what we're about."

The president's statement, along with the decision by the New York Stock Exchange to ban Al-Jazeera's reporters in 2003, is a prime example of how the Arab news media have been demonised since the September 11th attacks. As a result, America has failed to make use of what is potentially one of its most powerful weapons in the war of ideas against terrorism.

For proof, in the last year we surveyed 601 journalists in 13 Arab countries in North Africa, the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula. The results, to be published in The International Journal of Press/Politics in July, shatter many of the myths upon which American public diplomacy strategy has been based.

Rather than being the enemy, most Arab journalists are potential allies, whose agenda broadly track the stated goals of US Middle East policy and who can be a valuable conduit for explaining American policy to their audiences.

What Syrian-Israeli talks mean

Hasan Abu Nimah

AMMAN—There was a surprise announcement last week that Syrians and Israelis started indirect peace negotiations under Turkish patronage in Istanbul. That was confirmed in both countries' capitals soon afterwards.

Almost simultaneously, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that the two sides had already reached understanding as a result of secret talks in Europe two years earlier, between September 2004 and July 2006, and that the two sides would sign an agreement of principles, and once they had fulfilled their commitments, a peace agreement would be signed.

The terms include Israeli commitment to withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June 1967, without agreement on a timetable for the withdrawal. Syria demanded five years while Israel demanded 15.

Although Syrian sovereignty would be acknowledged on the evacuated land, the agreement includes the establishment of a public park on a "significant area of the Golan" for joint Syrian-Israeli use, but the Israeli presence there "will not be dependent on Syrian approval".

The agreement, described as an unsigned "non-paper" also speaks of a demilitarised zone on the Golan; a buffer zone in between the two sides on the basis of a ratio of 1:4 (in terms of territory) in Israel's favour; and Israeli control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and the Lake Kinneret.

CAUCASUS NEWS UPDATE MAY 29

May 29 Four police officers were reported wounded by a bomb blast in South Ossetia.

May 29 Georgian foreign minister Eka Tkeshelashvili held talks with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in Stockholm.

May 29 The European Court of Human Rights held Russia responsible for the presumed death of two Chechen civilians, Lecha and Ibragim Betayev "following their unacknowledged arrest by [Russian] State servicemen" in 2003. The parents of the two were awarded 70,000 euros in damages.

May 28 Both Armenia and Azerbaijan marked the 90th anniversary of their declaration of independence in 1918.

May 27 Officials from the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, PACE, meeting in Kiev, said Armenia had made few tangible steps to comply with a PACE resolution relating to the disputed election and March 1 bloodshed in Yerevan.

May 26 The United Nations said it had concluded that a Russian air force plane shot down an unmanned Georgian spy drone over Abkhazia on April 20. Russia contested the report.

May 26 A court in Moscow ordered the closure of the main opposition website in Ingushetia,

www.ingushetiya.ru.

May 26 The Georgian opposition held a mass rally to demand that the parliamentary election results of May 21 be annulled.

May 26 Georgia marked the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence in 1918. Polish president Lech Kaczynski was the guest of honour.

May 23 US state department spokesman Tom Casey said that Georgia's parliamentary elections appeared to have gone better than the presidential ones in January.

May 21 Leading Armenian human rights activist Mikael Danielian was lightly wounded when Tigran Urikhanian, the former leader of the Armenian Progressive Party, fired an air gun at him.

COMING UP...

May 30 Twelve European Union ambassadors or senior diplomats based in Tbilisi are due to visit Abkhazia

GEORGIAN OPPOSITION PLANS BOYCOTT

Political standoff continues as opposition plans to boycott new parliament
By Tamar Khorbaladze in Tbilisi

Several of the opposition parties which won seats in Georgia's new parliament are planning to boycott the legislature, alleging that the May 21 parliamentary election was rigged against them.

With the governing National Movement party set to receive 120 out of the 150 seats, according to official results, the confrontation between the authorities and the opposition looks set to continue.

President Mikheil Saakashvili, who said he was surprised by the scale of the victory achieved by his National Movement, said he hoped "the parliament won't be left without representatives of the opposition".

The nine-party coalition United Opposition and the Labour Party, which received 17.7 and 7.4 per cent of the vote, respectively, announced they would not be taking up their seats at a mass opposition rally in Tbilisi on May 26. Tens of thousands of people attended the rally.

"We don't recognise the results of a poll that was rigged by the authorities," said United Opposition leader David Gamkrelidze.

Most of the parties involved then signed a memorandum proposing the creation of an "alternative parliament".

ARMENIAN WAR VETS STILL IN JAIL

Karabakh war veterans' association under pressure after arrests.
By Diana Markosian in Yerevan

One of the lingering consequences of the political crisis in Armenia is that dozens of members of the influential veterans' group Yerkrapah remain in custody, creating a division between between the authorities and men who fought in the Nagorny Karabakh conflict.

The Yerkrapah members were among the opposition supporters detained during or after the March 1 violence that followed the country's disputed presidential election. Ten people died in the centre of Yerevan, eight of them opposition protestors and two law enforcement officers, and dozens of people were arrested.

Fifty-two people are still in custody charged with instigating violence, organising mass disorder in order to "overthrow the constitutional system", or illegal possession of weapons.

Yerkrapah, which in Armenian means "custodian of the land", is a union of volunteers who fought in the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. Founded during the war in 1993, the association supports veterans and their families and seeks to instil patriotic values in young people. It is estimated to have 27,000 or 28,000 members around the country.

Five of its members have so far been convicted by the courts, 24 remain under arrest and four are still wanted by the police.

Dignifying Lebanon's past

César Chelala

New York, New York - The settlement reached in Doha last week between warring factions in Lebanon puts an end to an 18-month national crisis and raises hopes for a stable future for that beleaguered country. It may also make real my father's dream for his country, and prompt a wider movement for peace in the region.

In the 1920s, my father emigrated from Lebanon to Argentina, but not for one day did he stop thinking or dreaming about his beloved country. He was a man of wide cultural interests, but economic setbacks in his new home left him in a precarious position. It affected his health and he died in 1971, relatively young and having never fulfilled his dream to return to his native Lebanon for a visit.

My father had emigrated to Tucumán, a town in Northern Argentina with a substantial Arab and Jewish population. There, he tried to make real his commitment to promoting culture and peace. Together with a group of friends, he founded the cultural Athenaeum Gibran Khalil Gibran, named after the famous Lebanese writer. During the 1950s and early 1960s, famous writers from all over Latin America gave lectures on a wide variety of subjects that brought hundreds of people to the Syrian and Lebanese Society, where the Athenaeum was located.

To the surprise of many, from the stalwarts of that organisation my father was able to obtain permission to allow Jewish professionals and students to attend the lectures. What may seem like a simple action was in fact a notable accomplishment, since it was the first time in the conservative society's history that Jews were welcomed. The memory of lively intellectual discussions created by those lectures persist even today, several decades after the Gibran Athenaeum stopped its activities.

Syria News Briefing No. 11

• BUSH VISIT WON’T AFFECT SYRIA
• SYRIA SEEKS LEGAL REDRESS FOR ASSAULTS IN LEBANON

BUSH VISIT WON’T AFFECT SYRIA

Syrian analysts and activists say President George Bush’s recent visit to the Middle East will not have a significant impact on their country, arguing that the United States leader enjoys little credibility in the region.

Bush made a few public comments on Syria during his five-day trip to the region, which ended on May 18.

Maintaining his administration’s tough stance towards Damascus, Bush urged Arab nations to reject both the Syrian and Iranian governments, saying he envisioned a democratic future Middle East that did not include the current Syrian regime.

The pro-government press in Syria carried several articles attacking Bush's visit and his Middle East policies generally.

Fuad Aliko, a former member of parliament and secretary of the Syrian Kurdish Yakiti party, said he did not believe the remarks represented a major threat to the government.

May 2008, birthday of Lebanon's latest civil war?

The Lebanon crisis 1/4
Joseph Bahout

Who would be naive enough to sincerely believe that behind the very sudden, rapid and savage outburst of violence in Beirut and the rest of Lebanon some ten days ago were the two famous decisions lightly taken by the Lebanese government? Of course, the government's resolve to dismantle the communication network Hizballah had put in place all over the capital and its suburbs and to void previous inter-sectarian agreements in order to remove and question the party's army officer in charge of Beirut Airport's security was seen by the entire opposition as the crossing of a red line and a casus belli. But it requires a deeper and more rational explanation to understand the enormity of what then happened and to integrate the tremendous consequences it produced and the new reality it has created.

Several retrospective analyses are possible. A global and remote approach would place all the events in line with the great cleavage that was opened by Rafiq Hariri's assassination and its outcome: the retreat of Damascus' armies from Lebanon, the skewed elections of spring 2005 and the hypocrite coalition that gave shape to this same government whose survival is today at stake.

A more direct focus would read all this as a logical consequence of the summer 2006 war that only apparently opposed Israel to Hizballah but that really exploded what remained of the thin layer of false confidence between the majority and the opposition. Recall that this episode opened the way to an endless litany of accusations of treason by the latter against the former, charging that it had plotted with the enemy to get rid of an entire sector of the Lebanese polity standing behind the "resistance".

Hizballah emerges the clear winner in a murky picture

The Lebanon crisis 2/4
Ferry Biederman

Hizballah emerged the clear winner earlier this month in the violent confrontation with Lebanon's western-backed government and later at the negotiating table in Doha. The Shi'ite movement pulled back from delivering a knockout military punch and says that it does not want to rule the country. But if it literally sticks to its guns, it may have no other choice.

The agreement reached in Doha may calm things for a while but core problems have not been solved. Lacking a more comprehensive political settlement, the country has now returned to that twilight zone in which everybody knows that Hizballah's military might cannot be challenged but where there are sufficient pockets of resistance left among its opponents for its hegemony not yet to be total.

Hizballah's brief military campaign is likely to have caused more problems than it solved. Some of the group's supporters described it as a "warning shot". But often such shots create more resentment than real willingness to compromise, assuming there is room for compromise. After seeing that Hizballah's promise not to turn its arms on other Lebanese was empty, other groups in Lebanon are even less likely to accept the continued threat of those arms. If there was scant evidence of a pro-government militia in Beirut before, chances are that work on it will now seriously start.

Political gains come at a price

The Lebanon crisis 3/4
Nicholas Blanford

The last-minute Qatar-mediated agreement among Lebanon's top leaders not only ended a debilitating 19-month political deadlock that brought Lebanon close to civil war, it has also demonstrated that the militant Shi'ite Hizballah holds both the political and military balance of power in the country.

The Hizballah-led opposition won key concessions from the Lebanese government and its supporters in the March 14 parliamentary coalition, chiefly winning its long-standing demand to secure a one-third share of cabinet seats in the next government, thus granting it veto power over unfavorable decisions.

The outcome would suggest a blow to the administration of US President George W. Bush that, throughout the months of crisis, has consistently encouraged its allies in the Lebanese government not to yield to Hizballah's dictates. Indeed, the US adopted a curiously ambivalent and muted stance during the recent street battles in Beirut, offering little other than verbal gestures of support for the beleaguered government. Whether this was an indication of the limitations of US influence in Lebanon or hid some broader ulterior agenda it is too soon to tell. Still, few in the Middle East will consider it a coincidence that on the same day the Doha agreement was born, Israel and Syria announced that they had been engaged in secret Turkish-brokered peace talks for over a year.

At stake, the state of Lebanon

The Lebanon crisis 4/4
Nizar Abdel-Kader

The violence started in Beirut on May 7 following a press conference by Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah in which he urged his militia to use force "to protect Hizballah's weapons". Nasrallah added that the Lebanese government had "declared war by designating Hizballah's private telephone network as an illegal act [that] should be removed." He also decried the government decision to remove the Beirut International Airport chief security officer for failing to deal with Hizballah intelligence efforts to monitor the airport.

By over-running Beirut, Hizballah has demonstrated with force what many observers already knew--that it and its allies have the military power to devastate the city and to impose their control on the international airport and the sea port of Beirut. The military operation stopped short of attacking the Prime Minister's Office and the Beirut residences of Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt, the two principal leaders of the March 14 coalition.

It would be an exaggeration to say that Hizballah's move was designed solely to force the government to revoke its two decisions concerning the telephone network and the removal of Brigadier General Wafic Shoucair. There is a deep conviction among most Lebanese that the causes for this drastic military move can be traced back to August 2006, when Hizballah declared a "divine victory" in its war with Israel. It became clear then that Hizballah would be turning its weapons inward, trying to assume a greater role in internal power-sharing and to enhance its status as a "state within a state".

Don't depend on outsiders to settle the Mideast dispute

Shlomo Avineri

JERUSALEM—Israel's 60th anniversary has come and gone. So, too, has President George W. Bush's final visit to the Middle East. Amidst the celebrations and the soul-searching, no meaningful breakthrough in the deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is visible.

Looking back at 60 years of American involvement in the region, one can discern two scenarios in which the United States can bring the local players to an agreement. Absent these conditions, the US is ultimately powerless. The first scenario is when a real war threatens to spill over into a wider conflict, destabilising the region and great power relations. At such times, resolute American steps can stop the fighting and impose a cease-fire, if not peace.

In 1973, at the end of the Yom Kippur War, Israel was poised to encircle the entire Egyptian Third Army in Sinai. Its troops were on the road to Cairo, threatening to inflict a major defeat on Egypt. Soviet intervention became a real threat. A few tough messages from President Richard Nixon stopped the Israelis in their tracks and enabled the Americans to start a lengthy process of de-escalation that led to a number of interim agreements.

Likewise, in 1982, during the invasion of Lebanon, Israeli troops were about to enter Muslim West Beirut after the pro-Israeli Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel was assassinated allegedly by Syrian agents. This would probably have brought Syria into the war. A few tough calls from President Ronald Reagan to Prime Minister Menachem Begin prevented this.

Gordimer to 'Post': Israel must talk to its enemies

Tom Hope and Steve Linde

JERUSALEM—As bitter, disheartening and entangled the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is, Nadine Gordimer's message is emphatic: Don't give up. It can be solved, but only by realising one thing: Talking to your worst enemies is the only way out.

"You're never going to solve the problems here while the enemies do not talk to one another," the South African novelist, visiting Israel for the International Writers Festival, told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview on Monday. "The 'other side' is always the enemy, and you have to, I'm afraid, swallow that and talk. You cannot exclude Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, you have to all talk together."

Gordimer, 83, is no stranger to intractable conflicts. In her novels, for which she won the Nobel literature prize in 1991, she dealt with the painful realities of South Africa. She was an outspoken anti-apartheid activist, and is to this day a member of the African National Congress. She has also been an outspoken critic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but after some hesitation rejected calls from Palestinians and their supporters to boycott the Jerusalem festival.

Wearing a plain, bold red shirt, she might be a fairly petite figure but is towering in her intense presence and scathing sentences. Although talking in a soft, kind manner, her words were spoken with thought-out seriousness, often halting at tricky points and retracting to start over again.

Above all, it seemed important for her in the interview at her Mishkenot Sha'ananim guestroom, to get across a message she sees paramount, crucial for the viable survival of Israelis and Palestinians—however controversial, even angering, it might be to some.

An unmentionable truce?

Sadie Goldman with Jason Proetorius and IPF Staff

WASHINGTON—A Hamas-Israel cease-fire could be on its way, but you wouldn't know it. No press conference will be held to announce it. Instead, quiet on Gaza's borders – no rockets going out, no Israeli fire going in – will serve as the declaration that the cease-fire has begun. But this quiet will come with a tension that at any moment the cease-fire could end. And once that happens, major confrontation can be expected.

The Cease-Fire That Shall Not Be Mentioned

This cease-fire, which Egypt asserts is pending final Palestinian approval, is a phased deal, which begins with what Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak reportedly described as "quiet in exchange for quiet." Hamas will stop rocket fire and terrorist activity from Gaza and ensure that all Palestinian militias do the same, and Israel, in turn, will stop air strikes and ground operations.

Once quiet is achieved, the more tenuous phases will follow, requiring further Egyptian brokered negotiations. According to Israeli analyst Ron Ben Yishai, in the first phase following a cessation of violence, Israel will begin to ease its closure of Gaza's borders while negotiations for the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit get underway. As Yishai outlined in Monday's Yediot Achronoth, first "the number of trucks carrying goods and food . . . as well as the number of fuel barrels transferred by Israel to Gaza every day, will grow considerably and gradually." At the same time negotiations will begin "to free Gilad Shalit in exchange for Palestinian prisoners." In the next phase, negotiations will accelerate to forge an agreement to open Gaza's "Rafah" crossing with Egypt in a way that is acceptable to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Finally, "the Gilad Shalit deal will be carried out, the crossings will be opened, and the Gaza siege will be lifted."

Will the water contradict the diver?

Mamoun Fandy

LONDON—The visit of US President George Bush to the region and the realisation of the two-state solution are governed by four determinants of which anyone interested in the peace process should not loose sight.

The first determinant is the time limit attached to President Bush's departure from the White House in eight months. Is this long enough for the US Administration to establish a Palestinian state? Will the remaining time be sufficient to establish a Palestinian state, even under international supervision in the manner of the independence of Kosovo?

The second determinant is the scandal surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Will Olmert remain as prime minister long enough to sign the peace agreement, or will there be a new prime minister in Israel around the time of signing who will need more time and support to start again?

The third determinant is the division between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Who will expect Israel to agree, and who will recognise the Palestinian state if the Palestinians themselves do not recognise each other?

The fourth and final determinant is the tense strategic regional atmosphere stretching from Iraq to Gaza and Beirut. Fears and suspicions among Sunni as well as Shia have begun to dominate the region and should be taken into consideration as sectarian divisions shape the landscape in the region and forecast the shape of wars to come.

CAUCASUS NEWS UPDATE MAY 22

May 22 Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili said he was "astonished" by the preliminary results of his country's parliamentary elections, held the day before, which gave the governing National Movement just under 60 per cent of the vote and may give it a two-thirds majority in parliament. The opposition said it would protest against the results. In a preliminary statement, international observer mission gave the election a cautiously positive verdict, while noting a number of falsifications.

May 22 Azerbaijani and Ukrainian presidents Ilham Aliev and Viktor Yushchenko held talks in Kiev and discussed energy cooperation.

May 21 The Georgian foreign ministry sent a note of protest to the secretariat of the Commonwealth of Independent States - under whose aegis Russian peacekeepers are deployed in the Abkhazia conflict zone - demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops and armament sent to Abkhazia in late April.

May 21 The Georgian government accused the Abkhaz authorities of blowing up two buses in the Gali district of Abkhazia taking Georgians to vote in the Zugdidi district of western Georgia. Four women were injured in the explosion.

May 20 Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met Abkhaz leader SergeI Bagapsh in Moscow.

May 20 Armenian parliamentarian Hrair Karapetian of the nationalist Dashnaktsutiun party was elected vice-speaker of parliament.

May 20 Russian military commander Nikolai Sivak said that 32 militants had been killed in Chechnya up until April 27 this year and 17 federal soldiers had died.

May 19 On the first visit to Baku by 12 years of a Turkmen leader, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, promised a new phase of cooperation between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The Turkmen leader also said his country was writing off a 44 million dollar debt owed his country by Azerbaijan.

May 15 Armenian opposition activist Hrachya Sarkisian declared a hunger strike in support of his imprisoned party leader Aram Karapetian.

May 15 The United Nations general assembly adopted a resolution by 14 votes to 11, with 105 abstentions, recognizing "the right of return of all refugees and internally displaced persons and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity, to Abkhazia, Georgia." The United States supported the resolution while Russia voted against.

COMING UP...

June 7 Newly inaugurated Armenian president Serzh Sarkisian and Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev are scheduled to have their first meeting in St Petersburg.

GEORGIAN PRESIDENT HAILS POLL VICTORY

Opposition considers future strategy as governing party claims election triumph.
By Mikhail Vignansky in Tbilisi

The Georgian capital Tbilisi was quiet the day after a parliamentary election in which the governing party claimed a resounding victory but the opposition claimed mass ballot fraud.

An international observers' report gave a generally positive verdict on the poll but also noted a number of significant violations.

"I am astonished at the level of support we received," said President Mikheil Saakashvili, after early results showed his National Movement with a clear lead over the opposition.

"I want to say that regardless of whether the National Movement obtains a constitutional majority [in parliament], we are not planning to make any changes to the constitution and what's more we will not make any changes without consulting the whole political spectrum and involving the opposition."

The opposition met on the evening of May 22 to consider its options, after preliminary results suggested that its main grouping, a nine-party coalition, had won just over 16 per cent of the vote, well behind the National Movement with close to 60 per cent.

Two other opposition parties, the Christian Democratic Movement and the Labour Party, also looked likely to surpass the five per cent threshold for representation in parliament.

Dark clouds and silver linings in Lebanon

Abbas Barzegar

Atlanta, Georgia - Some say that politics is warfare by other means. Lebanon has been trying to avoid such a reality, but the recent outbreak of violence seems to have confirmed its worst fears. Hopefully, as the dust settles, the shops re-open and the Beirut shoreline once again greets her mountains, Lebanon's political leaders and their international patrons will take a moment to reflect on the lessons and losses of the latest fiasco.

While many are convinced that this round of conflict will domino into a full-fledged civil war, even in the haze of gunfire Lebanese leaders have shown restraint at the brink of an abyss. That all parties have deferred to the army, choosing cease-fire over chaos, is in itself cause for optimism.

Last week's violence only proved to the country's politicians what they already knew. Hizbullah and the opposition are overwhelmingly strong, and the government is a sitting duck, exists only in name, and has no command over the state structure. Most importantly, the army is the only party in Lebanon that can broker a way out of the stalemate.

In fact, the endorsement of General Michel Suleiman as the consensus president in December was a premonition of things to come. At that juncture, the pro-government camp and the opposition forces effectively capitulated, handing the stalemate over the presidency to the army. Through last week's violence, Suleiman and his military forces are now the only standing entity in the country with the confidence of all national and international actors.

Turkey's turning point

Christina Bache Fidan

Istanbul, Turkey - Turkey's emerging generation of leaders finds itself tasked with a complicated and challenging set of both domestic and foreign policy issues to address in the coming years. Facing this imminent responsibility, many young people remain cynical about the events unfolding around them. The Court Case against the ruling Justice and Development Party and the recent police reactions to the 1 May Labour Day protests have further undermined the environment for various interest groups to find common ground.

Turkish society finds itself at a crossroads with the vision of a homogenous nation challenged by various social elements, particularly among minority communities that are calling for greater cultural freedom and economic development.

An atmosphere of distrust and despair remains among the poor who feel isolated from the protection of the nation-state. Rural regions in Turkey are highly underdeveloped compared with urban areas, with poverty rates twice as high. The slow pace of sustainable development reinforces the social and economic exclusion of a significant portion of Turkish citizens – namely ethnic Kurds who live in the southeast.

Over the last few decades, Turkey has experienced a significant internal migration from rural to urban areas, which has offset Turkey's progress, posed challenges for integration and put pressure on the four largest metropolitan areas – Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and Bursa.

Historical accidents and collective learning in Iran

Ahmad Sadri

Lake Forest, Illinois - "Why, oh, why me?" is a common theme of Persian poetry, and complaining about the disfavour of the stars is a general Iranian art form. There is no dearth of evidence in Iranian history for this attitude. King Xerxes was probably the first to complain about his Persian luck when a tempest sank his armada off the coast of Magnesia in the 5th century BC.

Fortuna was looking the other way 1,100 years later when the Persian Empire lost a decisive battle against Muslim Arabs with a tough wind on their back. And appearing to help Iran's enemies with hurricanes and sand storms, the heavens seem unforgiving of the slightest Iranian ineptitude. All it took was one lapse from a careless Shah and the Mongol steamroller stopped its westward march to turn South, literally flattening Iran's thriving 13th century civilisation.

And it's even more unfair when Iranian leaders act correctly only to be tricked by the law of unintended consequences. About 30 years ago, Iran's first post-revolutionary prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan, obtained the blessings of Ayatollah Khomeini for a fairly secular and democratic constitution.

But Bazargan, the inveterate liberal optimist, could not leave well enough alone. He insisted on ratification of the constitution by a democratically elected Assembly of Experts. To Bazargan's dismay, a loud right-wing cabal took over that elected body and transformed the democratic constitution into a blueprint for a semi-theocratic system.

Syria News Briefing No. 10

• SYRIANS MOSTLY BACK HEZBOLLAH ACTIONS
• RUSSIA’S FRIENDSHIP HAS ITS LIMITS
• FEMALE SINGERS CELEBRATE DIVERSITY IN DAMASCUS

SYRIANS MOSTLY BACK HEZBOLLAH ACTIONS

Hezbollah has won support from many Syrians following the Lebanese militia’s seizure of several Beirut neighbourhoods, although some worry that the recent violence could herald a new round of civil war.

The Shia militia, an ally of Syria, is now retreating from the neighbourhoods that it took over last week. Its withdrawal came after the western-backed government reversed decisions with which the group was unhappy –the sacking of the security chief at Beirut airport for alleged Hezbollah ties, and a ruling that the militia’s private phone network was illegal.

"I was walking around and listening to what people had to say about the crisis," said one journalist in Damascus. "Most of them are happy with what they see as a new victory for Hezbollah."

Hezbollah flags could be seen fluttering in windows in the Syrian capital, and there were photos of the group’s leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on walls around the city.

SADR CITY CONDITIONS WORSEN

Weeks of fighting have shut off many essential services in the Shia neighbourhood.
By an IWPR-trained reporter in Baghdad

Living conditions in Sadr City, already one of Baghdad’s most impoverished slums, have deteriorated sharply following weeks of fighting between Shia militiamen and United States-backed Iraqi troops that has killed hundreds, according to Iraqi lawmakers.

"The situation has deteriorated significantly because most of the services have been stopped," said Aliyah Nassif Jassim, a member of parliament from the Iraqia bloc, who recently visited the district as part of a parliamentary delegation. "Many civilian homes have been destroyed as a result of the air strikes and the military operations."

A fragile four-day ceasefire agreement between radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi government signed on May 12 has reduced but not halted fighting in the area, a Shia neighbourhood run by Sadr militiamen. The US military has maintained that Iranian fighters are supporting Sadr loyalists there. Iran has denied having a military presence in Iraq.

Salih al-Agili, an MP loyal to Sadr who lives in Sadr City, said more than 100 houses have been destroyed by the continuous skirmishing and air strikes since the outbreak of hostilities more than a month ago.

The district lacks an adequate water supply while medical provision and the sewage system have gone from bad to worse, say lawmakers. Trash has not been collected for weeks and is piling up in the streets and around houses.

EXPERTS URGE POWER-SHARING FOR KIRKUK

But Kurds in no mood to give up on demand for referendum on province’s fate.
By Mariwan Hama-Saeed in Washington

Kurds should explore the possibility of a power-sharing agreement for Kirkuk because the competing claims of the province’s communities will not be resolved through a referendum over its future, several international experts told a Washington conference at the weekend.

But Kurdish participants at the gathering in the US capital warned that a ballot over whether Kirkuk is governed by the Kurdistan region or central government, as required by Article 140 of the constitution, was the only way forward for the province –and that failure to hold one would be disastrous.

The conference, held May 9-11, and sponsored by the Washington Kurdish Institute, the Kurdistan National Congress of North America and the University of Pennsylvania, attracted more than 100 Kurds and experts from think-tanks and the US government.

The conference tackled issues ranging from the conflict between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, to discrimination against Kurds in Iran, Syria and Turkey –but Kirkuk and the challenges of implementing Article 140 headlined the event.

Kurds have grown increasingly frustrated over delays in its implementation. "Washington is the centre of politics and the way things are dealt with here affects all the world," said Najmaldin Karim, president of the Washington Kurdish Institute. "We want to send the message that Article 140 is not dead."

Israelis are talking to Hamas: religion at the cutting edge

Marc Gopin

WASHINGTON—There are Israeli Jews who have been talking to Hamas for years, especially Rabbi Menahem Frohman. In fact, there are more Israeli Jews, official and un-official, who would be talking not only to Hamas, but also to Syria and Iran were the White House not pressuring them against dialogue with enemies of Israel. This is unprecedented: a third party, supposedly mediating for peace, that forbids two parties from talking to each other.

Sober intelligence analysts at the highest levels in Israel have been arguing the virtue of negotiation and a process of offers and counter-offers—not because they are nonviolence activists, but because they are realists seeking the path of least resistance to a more stable and safe Middle East. They have every intention of confronting the military threat from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, but through a subtle combination of approaches, not the least of which is negotiation. They understand very well that an offer to an inveterate enemy that does not recognise your existence is not a capitulation, but rather a test. It is a test that will put constructive pressure on radicals to come to the table, or split among themselves. All good news for realists.

There are also religious Israeli Jews who have honed their negotiation skills with Hamas over many years now. Rabbi Frohman, along with Khaled Amayreh, a Hebron Journalist close to Hamas, have come up with a ceasefire that is realistic, but also appealing to the religious frame in which Hamas exclusively operates. This was not an official document, but it has been followed by important statements released by Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Syria, regarding interest in an agreement between Hamas and Israel to not target civilians, which would mean an end to suicide attacks. In addition, Meshal has come out with a statement that appears to accept Israel's existence within the 1967 borders, which appears to meet a major criterion for Western acceptance of Hamas. These are all positive signs, and yet it comes in the midst of military moves by Israel and Syria that are making everyone nervous about a coming confrontation.

A credible peace process

Mohammed Herzallah

BOSTON—Hamas just offered Israel a 10-year long truce. This is an important opening that could allow Israel and the United States to start engaging Hamas in the political process, either directly or through Arab allies, because the isolation of Hamas undermines the policy objectives of all parties presently involved.

Mahmoud Abbas is the elected president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but he cannot be expected to reach a credible and lasting political settlement with the Israeli government unless and until he secures Hamas' consent and blessing. The Islamist movement maintains broad support in the occupied Palestinian territories and has demonstrated time and again that it has the necessary capacity to subvert negotiations with Israel. Discord in the Gaza Strip and the resultant security unrest in adjacent Israeli communities substantiate the claim that Palestinian national consensus is indispensable to the peace process.

Regrettably, the task of cultivating this consensus is becoming progressively more difficult. In the past, disagreements between Fatah and Hamas, the two political pillars of Palestinian politics, had always subsisted on their ideological differences. Now, the competing preferences of intrusive external powers have distorted Palestinian politics and have rendered factional differences more irreconcilable.

Should Palestinians forgive Israel?

Samir El-Youssef

LONDON—In the first chapter of Amos Oz's novel My Michael, the protagonist Hannah recalls her childhood friends, Khalil and Aziz, two Palestinians who in 1948 disappeared along with 800,000 of their people. In the last chapter she imagines her two friends coming back to blow everything up. By then Hannah has descended into madness.

Hannah, like Oz and his generation of Israelis, knows that before the war of 1948 there was another, older and larger society than her own, and that that society was destroyed and its traces erased; the population was forced to leave, villages were razed to the ground and cities, neighbourhoods and streets were renamed. She must also know that the destruction of the Palestinian society was necessary for the creation of Israel. Unlike her generation, however, Hannah is willing to admit what she knows; but that's only because she is mad.

Israelis know that, within the ongoing conflict, making this acknowledgement could, as the novel concludes, be an act of madness and a call for self-destruction. For such an acknowledgement endorses the basic and uncompromising Palestinian claims. Practically every single Palestinian believes that before the Nakba — or "catastrophe" — there was a Palestinian society similar to Arab societies in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt; that if it hadn't been for Jewish migration to Palestine, with the intention and means of creating a Jewish state, Palestine would have progressed into a sovereign Palestinian state.

The roadmap revisited

Naomi Chazan

JERUSALEM—The "Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" highlights both the good intentions and the misplaced conceptions of its promulgators. Five years after its adoption, it lingers not as a tool for the achievement of a sustainable agreement but as a burdensome impediment to its realisation.

The roadmap was construed as a decidedly goal-oriented document. Substantively, it corrected the most glaring lacuna of the Oslo process by explicitly defining the destination of diplomatic efforts: "the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state [that]...will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967."

Strategically, however, it was flawed from the outset. It sought to correct, but not to diverge from, the step-by-step approach undertaken in Oslo by setting out distinct phases, compressed timetables, clear benchmarks and visible monitoring mechanisms (overseen by the international community in the form of the Quartet). The built-in conditionalities on progress, coupled with the loose dependence on "the good faith of the parties," meant that it was doubtful – if not thoroughly unrealistic – to expect that the chosen route could lead to the desired destination. Despite the shift in the locus of decision-making from the parties themselves to global actors, the reluctance of Israeli and Palestinian officials to agree to the roadmap's main provisions, along with the numerous reservations they attached, is testimony to the unease with which it was greeted.

CAUCASUS NEWS UPDATE MAY 15

May 15 The United Nations General Assembly was due to discuss a Georgian draft resolution on the status of internally displaced people from Abkhazia.

May 15 Two policemen were killed and one was wounded in an attack in the Karabudakhkent region of Dagestan.

May 14 Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili began a visit to Israel, to attend celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the state. He may have a meeting there with US president George W. Bush.

May 14 Eduard Kokoity, the de facto leader of South Ossetia, alleged that Georgian security services were planning to stage a "terrorist act" against ethnic Georgians inside the region in order to start military action there.

May 14 Georgia's minister for reintegration Temur Iakobashvili said that war with Russia had been avoided thanks to the efforts of French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner.

May 14 Georgia's minister for reintegration Temur Iakobashvili began a two-day visit to Moscow.

May 14 The special working group formed to study the recommendations made to Armenia by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its resolution 1609 to resolve the political crisis in Armenia, made recommendations to President Serzh Sarkisian.

May 14 Russian president Dmitry Medvedev appointed former justice minister Vladimir Ustinov as his new presidential representative for the southern federal district, including the North Caucasus, in succession to Grigory Rapota.

May 14 Three policemen were reported killed near Nazran, Ingushetia.

May 14 A court in Baku banned the Centre for Monitoring of Elections, an election monitoring group, from monitoring October's presidential elections in Azerbaijan.

May 14 Azerbaijan's state statistics committee said gross domestic product had risen by 15 per cent in the first four months of 2008.

May 13-14 Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and his German colleague Walter Steinmeier discussed the Georgian-Russian crisis in talks in Yekaterinburg.

May 13 Sergei Bagapsh, the de facto president of Abkhazia, said he wanted to see a Russian military base in Abkhazia as a guarantee of security.

May 13 Georgia's ambassador to the United Nations and former negotiator on Abkhazia, Irakly Alasania, visited Sukhumi for talks with the de facto Abkhaz leadership.

May 13 Russian security forces said they had killed at least two suspected militants in a gun battle in Nazran, Ingushetia.

May 12 Azerbaijani foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov announced that new Armenian president Serzh Sarkisian and Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev would hold their first meeting on June 7.

May 12 US president George W. Bush and new Russian president Dmitry Medvedev discussed the Georgian-Russian crisis by telephone.

May 12 The foreign ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden made a joint visit to Tbilisi to discuss the Georgian-Russian crisis.

May 10 US deputy assistant secretary of state Matt Bryza and US ambassador in Tbilisi Matt Bryza visited Sukhumi.

May 9 Georgia's human rights defender Sozar Subari said that there was evidence of "political pressure" by the security forces and governing party on the public ahead of the May 21 parliamentary elections.

May 8 The UN observer mission in Georgia, UNOMIG, said that its monitors had "not reported any buildup of security forces" either in the Kodori Gorge, or ?? the administrative Abkhaz border by either side.

ABKHAZIA-GEORGIA RESIDENTS LIVING ON THE EDGE

Life in southern Abkhazia was already precarious, but now residents fear they will be caught at the centre of renewed conflict.
By Irakli Lagvilava in Gali

Sixty-two-year-old Tsiala has a red-brick house with a large porch and shuttered windows in town of Gali in southern Abkhazia, where she lives with her husband and daughter-in-law. Outside, a green patch of grass is planted with rose-bushes and an oleander tree.

Tsiala (not her real name) is fiercely proud of her home, and has just painted the windows and railings, using money sent by her son who is away working in Russia.

Like many people here, she makes a living from Gali's rich soil, in particular the lucrative hazelnut industry.

"Try some of our hazelnuts - we've got more than a tonne of them in the village and that's what we mainly live off," she said.

But now Tsiala is worried that her way of life is under threat, as both the Russian and Georgian governments talk of a possible war over the breakaway territory of Abkhazia.

Last week Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili said his country was "very close" to conflict, although in more recent days politicians in Tbilisi have said the imminent threat is receding.

"Best not to give my name," said Tsiala. "Maybe war will break out here today or tomorrow."

Peace by the end of 2008?

Two peace processes: Cyprus and Israel-Palestine 1/4
Nimrod Goren

Two intractable conflicts, distanced only 400 kilometers apart, are targeted for resolution by the end of 2008. On November 27, 2007, US President George W. Bush announced that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to "make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008". Four months later, on March 21, 2008, Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat declared after meeting newly-elected President of the Republic of Cyprus Dimitris Christofias that "we want to solve the Cyprus problem as soon as possible. Our position is [to do that] by the end of 2008."

After years of stalemate, 2008 sees a renewed effort to resolve both conflicts. Almost mid-way through the year, though, it seems that should peace be reached by the end of 2008 it will more likely be shared by Turkish and Greek Cypriots than by Israelis and Palestinians.

The two conflicts have a long history dating back to the nineteenth century and are based on ethnic, religious and national rifts. Both focus nowadays on political realities shaped in recent decades--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and the partition of Cyprus in 1974. Since, numerous attempts at resolving them have resulted in failure, most notably the 2000 Camp David summit and the 2004 Annan plan. These attempts touched upon core issues shared by both conflicts: recognition and self-determination, return of refugees, evacuation of settlements, land ownership, traumas and national symbols. However, the desired solutions for each conflict are entirely different. While the Israeli-Palestinian peace process aims at permanent partition in a two-state framework, the objective in Cyprus is to avoid such partition and to reunify the island under agreed-upon conditions.

New openings for a Cyprus settlement?

Two peace processes: Cyprus and Israel-Palestine 2/4
Maria Hadjipavlou

The Cyprus conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been on the international agenda for many decades and both remain unresolved. Both have been called intractable and deeply-rooted conflicts. The causes of the intractability are many and multi-layered: historic, foreign interventions, competing nationalisms, economic asymmetries, leadership issues and psychological issues--such as a sense of victimhood and feelings of injustice and traumas that place all the blame on the other who is constructed as the enemy. One big difference between the two conflicts is the level of violence, which in the case of Israel and Palestine is a big problem as are the restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, the occupation and the building of settlements. These last two issues Cypriots also have to deal with.

There have been numerous opportunities to solve the Cyprus conflict. In the February 2008 presidential elections in the Republic of Cyprus, the Greek Cypriots elected Dimitris Christofias, secretary-general of the communist party AKEL--the first left-wing president. He succeeded Tassos Papadopoulos, who did almost nothing to promote a solution and was so perceived by the European Union and the international community. For the first time since the 2004 referenda and the failure of the "Annan Plan", which led to a renewed environment of mistrust, betrayal and frustration, there is now a new hope that the Cyprus conflict can be resolved.

Personally, I found three of the new president's many statements very significant. This makes me believe that a new political culture may arise. One is his declaration that "we want to find a solution that will come from the Cypriots for the Cypriots." This is the first time a president so clearly says what many of us in the bi-communal and rapprochement movement have been promoting. This statement points to the need to undertake our own responsibility in working toward a solution and is a departure from the "blame the other" model and conspiracy theories.

United Greek Cypriots an example for divided Palestinians

Two peace processes: Cyprus and Israel-Palestine 3/4
Michael Jansen

There are a number of parallels between the Cypriot nakba, the catastrophe of 1974, and the Palestinian nakba of 1948. Cyprus was invaded and the northern third of the island occupied by Turkey, a valued and favored member of the western alliance, in accordance with a plan drawn up in the mid-1950s. Nearly all Greek Cypriots living in the occupied area were driven from their homes, lands and businesses that were expropriated under an absentee property law similar to that adopted by Israel. Like Israel, Turkey erased the character of the north by changing place names and allowing the pillage of religious, historical and archaeological sites. Turkey also refused to reach a settlement involving the reunification of the island and followed Israel's example of creating "facts on the ground" to make it difficult if not impossible for Greek Cypriots to return to the north. It is significant that today, Israelis are the second largest investors in northern Cyprus (after mainland Turks) and that many property developments executed after 2004 resemble Israel's West Bank settlements.

Before discussing lessons for Palestinians of the Greek Cypriot nakba, it is necessary to point out several major differences between the two cases. These differences gave Greek Cypriots huge advantages over Palestinians. Greek Cypriots, the 82 percent majority in the island republic that won its independence from Britain in 1960, enjoyed sovereignty and national legitimacy when the island was invaded and partitioned by Turkey. Palestine had not emerged from British occupation when the Zionists/Israelis established their state on 78 per cent of the country's land and expelled 85 per cent of native Palestinians.

Turkey's actions constituted a flagrant a