Missiles, more missiles

BY ALL accounts, Russia is keen on upping the ante, vis-à-vis its engagements with the United States in what might finally be seen as the return of the Cold War era. In other words, let’s face the reality: there’s nothing constant about the emergence of the unipolar world; it could, at best, be a brief interregnum. Signs are there for all to see. Take for instance, the warning sounded by Russia’s Commander of the rocket forces, Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov, that his country is game for a resumption of production of short and medium-range nuclear missiles, should a need arise, even if it meant a break from its arms treaties. These are straws in the wind; and the real action could follow in due course. Which is what President Putin has already told America the other day: that, he might not necessarily stand by the arms control treaty signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, historically bringing the curtains down on the Cold War days, two decades ago. That saw the scrapping of nearly 3,000 small and medium range missiles, giving a great fillip to the cause of global demilitarisation and denuclearisation process. The hopes in this respect, it would now seem, will be short-lived.
Nothing, in recent years, however, gives us the feeling we are heading into a safer world. The war in Iraq, into its fifth year, and still raging, and the advancement of the pre-emptive strike theory by the Bush administration have already dampened the hopes of peace activists. War clouds are hovering over the region in a new form targeting Iran; and, an avoidable war in Lebanon has had its share of deaths and devastations. President Putin might be blowing hot and cold — sharply criticising America one day, and claiming to have a “personal friendship” with George Bush the next day — but his task, in the emerging world order, is already cut out. Without doubt, Russia is keen on playing an active role on world stage yet again: a reason why Russian officials are writing off the Gorbachev-Reagan treaty now as a “Cold War relic”. They, however, have a point when they ask, “why limit the scope” for such a deal to only some, when others can keep building their arsenals? The fact is, arms control talks, or discussions for a nuclear-free world, have made very little progress as there is no seriousness on the part of the dominant parties involved to effect a real, positive change to the world scenario. There’s hypocrisy involved in the act of keeping one’s arsenals intact and asking others to destroy theirs. Under the circumstances, nothing might prevent Russia from scrapping the 1987 deal. All of these bode ill for all of us. For, they will take the world back to Square One; that is, back to a state of hopelessness, yet again.

Bloodshed as business

THE problem with the Darfur peace talks that began in Libya yesterday is that two key groups of Darfur rebels have refused to attend. It is hard to see what can be achieved if all of the parties are not seated around the table. Nevertheless it is right that the talks are going ahead, because whatever the absentee rebels may imagine to the contrary, in the end, it is only talking that can ever stop this terrible tragedy. There is major international focus on the Libyan talks, because remote and isolated though Darfur may be, its brutal humanitarian disaster has forced itself on world attention. Yet diplomats are warning that unless all parties can be involved in peace talks, there will a repeat of last year’s failure in Kenya when considerable international pressure was brought to bear on those attending to cut a deal. Unfortunately, one of the rebel groups, the SLA-Unity and the Justice party, refused at the last minute to sign. This time, the same group is refusing to attend along with the Equality Movement (JEM). Among the grounds cited are that some of the other Darfur rebel delegations do not in fact represent a significant number of the non-Arab population. As excuses go, this one is pretty specious. If the dissenting rebel leaders had a genuine interest in “unity, justice and equality” — words that they have chosen to include in their names, they would be attending regardless because here is a second opportunity to bring to an end the obscene agony of the people they claim to represent.
What is far more likely is that these largely tribal-based rebel leaders have discovered the conflict is actually bringing greater benefits to them personally than a peace in which the humdrum necessities of earning a living from the land and business dominate. These men and their followers now have guns. They can kill and rob and plunder, often with impunity, all in the name of some lofty political cause in which they actually have little or no belief or knowledge. The path they are following is classic for rebels everywhere who discover that profits come from the barrel of a gun and the greatest profits come from criminal activities such as narcotics, smuggling and extortion, generally from their own people. Therefore, these individuals naturally have little interest in peace talks. Besides, if they can keep the bloodshed running longer, maybe the sweeteners — both public and private — on offer from the international community will become much larger. It is hard to feel anything other than contempt for this self-interested approach. The Sudanese government is at least sitting at the negotiating table. It was extraordinarily inept in coping with the concerns of Darfuris before rebellion broke out in 2003. Thereafter, its behavior in arming, supporting and unleashing the Janjaweed militias has been reprehensible. But perhaps there is the first glimmer of hope that the Bashir administration is ready to try and repeat its historic peace deal with southern rebels. For Darfur’s insurgents to reject this opportunity is contrary and plain wrong.

—Arab News