Ransom for hostages

IT’S time to heave a sigh of relief, that the month-and-a-half-old crisis involving South Korean hostages in Afghanistan has been resolved with minimum loss of lives; but not quite. For, worse situations await us as a natural corollary of what is claimed, or perceived, to have been done now; namely, the paying of a hefty amount as ransom. Whether or not it is of the order of $20 million, it is certain that big money has changed hands; this, despite the denial from Seoul that it did pay a ransom. No one, in fact, expects of South Korea to openly admit to have made such payments. The point of worry however is more as to how this money is proposed to be used by the recipient, namely Taleban. As its commander has announced minutes after the freeing of the 19 hostages, it has additional wherewithal now to organise more kidnappings and suicide bombings. Each penny could turn into pellets, or material for bombs, resulting in more deaths and devastation. Instead of losing the 19 lives of the missionaries, we might end up losing the lives of hundreds of ordinary civilians in pre-meditated blasts, inside, or even outside, Afghanistan. In other words, terror has got another shot in the arm.
In the first place, there was no plausible reason why the South Korean missionaries should have found their way into Afghanistan, considering the volatile situation that existed there. If theirs was a religious mission, to spread the faith as is talked about, it was in no way the opportune time. If reaching aid was the motto, South Korea had better ways to do so. Be that as it may, paying a ransom and getting out of a tricky situation would have been the end of the matter, had it not been for the startling proclamation as to how this money is going to be used. Courting terrorists cannot by any means be seen as being part of the War on Terror that President Bush is claiming to be spearheading in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet, why an American ally has chosen to do this? Without doubt, this is going to encourage more such kidnappings, leading to payments of ransoms, and subsequent diversion of such money to fan terror. Coming to the issue of the War on Terror, it is pertinent to assess what has gone wrong with the slogan and the endeavour thereof. Afghanistan continues to be the breeding ground for international terror, as the over six years of Bush’s directionless overdrive made little difference to the scenario, other than that the situation has got aggravated elsewhere, like Iraq, too. In fact, terrorists had never had it so good, as has now been the case. The paying of ransom by South Koreans has only added fresh punch to this grim scenario.
 

Poisoned relationship

THE weekend demonstration in Gaza against Hamas ended quickly. It was not particularly large or violent, but it was the biggest show of opposition to Hamas since it took control of Gaza in June. Such protests could increase in number and strength, as could the reasons behind them — all part of the continuing poisoned relationship between Hamas and Fatah. The lack of Palestinian unity is disastrous, not only because it serves as a diversion from the struggle for freedom and sovereignty but also because it also presents Hamas and Fatah with very limited options. Hamas’ isolation will likely strengthen a more radical view among its members which will make it difficult to find a common ground in the future, while Fatah will have to continue to rely on outside help and initiatives, notwithstanding the hardly promising November international Middle East peace conference aimed at, among other things, solidifying support for President Mahmoud Abbas against Hamas. In the time leading up to the conference, Abbas is expected to continue to demonstrate his trustworthiness to Israel and the US at the expense of the Palestinian people who are now denied the only card they ever had in their six-decade struggle for freedom: their sense of collectivity.
Once they had ascertained that the Palestinians were solidly split down the middle, Israel and the US reverted to their old ways. They are hardly discreet about the role they expect Abbas to play: to keep Hamas away or at least at bay as a ruling authority and a popular political force. The rewards for meeting Israeli and American policy objectives have been tens of millions of tax dollars that Israel has illegally withheld from the elected Hamas government, military training for Fatah security forces and, finally, an international platform to provide Abbas with the political validation he needs. As a reward for such active involvement in deepening the desperation in Gaza and widening disunity among Palestinians, Abbas has been granted the privilege of meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert once every two weeks, and also the trust and confidence of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her boss. Any attempt at reconciliation with Hamas would most definitely lead to the withdrawal of some, if not all, of these advantages — and this is a risk Abbas will not take. Abbas, in return, is throwing in a few extras, beyond what is expected from him. Reports that Israel is soon to launch a military strike targeting Hamas militias may not be news, but it is incredible, if true, that Fatah officials have asked Washington to persuade the Olmert government to press ahead with such an offensive, first to ensure that Hamas’ rule in Gaza does not extend farther, and then to debilitate Hamas to the point where it will be unable to hamper the success of the international meeting. At some point, Fatah and Hamas need to reach an historic compromise and then with Israel. This will be hard but could be made much easier if America and Israel sought the same goals.

—Arab News