‘The tumult & shouting dies’
Uri Avnery

THE TUMULT and the shouting dies, / The captains and the kings depart...” Rudyard Kipling wrote in his unforgettable poem “Lest We Forget” (“Recessional”)
King George departed even before the tumult had died. His helicopter carried him away over the horizon, just as his trusty steed carries the cowboy into the sunset at the end of the movie. At that moment, the speeches in the assembly hall were still going ahead at full blast.
This summed up the whole event. The final statement announced that the United States will supervise the negotiations, act as a referee of the implementation and as a judge throughout. Everything depends on her. If she wants it — much will happen. If she does not want it — nothing will happen.
That bodes ill. There is no indication that George Bush will really intervene to achieve anything, apart from nice photos. Some people believe that the whole show was put on to make poor Condoleezza Rice feel good, after all her efforts as secretary of state have come to naught.
Even if Bush wanted to, could he do anything? Is he capable of putting pressure on Israel, in the face of vigorous opposition from the pro-Israel lobby, and especially from the Christian-Evangelist public, to which he himself belongs?
A friend told me that during the conference he watched the televised proceedings with the sound turned off, just observing the body language of the principal actors. That way he noticed an interesting detail: Bush and Olmert touched each other many times, but there was almost no physical contact between Bush and Mahmoud Abbas. More than that: During all the joint events, the distance between Bush and Olmert was smaller than the distance between Bush and Abbas. Several times Bush and Olmert walked ahead together, with Abbas trailing behind.
That’s the whole story.
Sherlock Holmes said in one of his cases that the solution could be found in “the curious incident of the dogs in the night-time.” When it was pointed out to him that the dogs did nothing, he explained: “That was the curious incident.”
Anyone who wants to understand what has (or has not) happened at Annapolis will find the answer in this fact: The dogs did not bark. The settlers and their friends were keeping quiet, did not panic, did not get excited, did not distribute posters of Olmert in SS uniform (as they had done with Rabin after Oslo). All in all, they contented themselves with the obligatory prayer at the Western Wall and a smallish demonstration near the Prime Minister’s residence.
This means that they were not worried. They knew that nothing would come out of it, that there would be no agreement on the dismantling of even one measly settlement outpost. And on the forecast of the settlers’ leaders one can rely in such matters. If there had been the slightest danger that peace would result from this conference, they would have mobilized their followers en masse.
The Hamas movement, on the other hand, did organize mass demonstrations in Gaza and the West Bank towns. The Hamas leaders were very worried indeed.
Not because they were afraid that peace would be concluded at the meeting. They were apprehensive of another danger: That the only real aim of the meeting was to prepare the ground for an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
Ami Ayalon, a former admiral who once posed as a man of peace, and who is now a Labor member of the Cabinet, appeared during the conference on Israeli TV to say so quite openly: He was in favor of the conference because it legitimizes this operation.
The line of thought goes like this: In order to fulfill his obligation under the Road Map, Abbas must “destroy the terrorist infrastructure” in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. “Terrorism” means Hamas. Since Abbas is unable to conquer the Gaza Strip himself, the Israeli army will do it for him.
True, it may be costly. In the last few months, a lot of arms have been flowing into Gaza through the tunnels under the border with Egypt. Many people on both sides will lose their lives. But “What can you do? There is no alternative.”
It may be that in retrospect, the main (if not the only) outcome of Annapolis will be this: The conquest of the Gaza Strip in order to “strengthen Abbas”.
Hamas, in any case, is worried. And not without reason.
In preparation for such a confrontation, the Hamas leaders have become even more shrill in their opposition to the meeting, to which they were not invited. They denounced Abbas as a collaborator and a traitor, reiterating that Hamas would never recognize Israel nor accept a peace agreement with it.
I can picture in my mind a conference of the opponents of the proposed peace process, a kind of anti-Annapolis. Not the routine meeting planned by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, to which only Muslims will be invited, but a joint meeting of all extremists on both sides. Khalid Mashal and Ismail Hanieh will sit opposite Avigdor Liberman, Effi Eytam and Benny Elon, and deliberate together how to frustrate the “Two-State solution”.
If I were invited to moderate this conference, I would start like this: Gentlemen (Ladies will not be present, of course), let us begin by summing up the points on which there is agreement, and only afterwards deal with the points in dispute.
So: All of you agree that the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River will become one state (general agreement). You, Palestinian gentlemen, agree that the Jews will enjoy full equality (agreement on the Palestinian side of the table). And you, Israeli gentlemen, agree that Arabs will enjoy full equality (agreement on the Israeli side of the table). And, of course, you do agree that there will be full freedom of religion for all (general agreement).
If this is the situation, gentlemen, then the only remaining disagreement concerns the name — whether to call the state Palestine or Israel. Is it worthwhile to quarrel and spill blood about that? Let’s agree on a neutral name, something like Isrestine or Palael. Back to the White House: If the three leaders agreed there in secret deliberations that the Israeli army will invade the Gaza Strip, that is very bad news.
It would have been better to get Hamas involved — if not directly, then indirectly. The absence of Hamas left a yawning gap at the conference. What is the sense in convening 40 representatives from all over the world, and leaving more than half the Palestinian people without representation?
The more so since the boycott of Hamas has pushed the organization further into a corner, causing it to oppose the meeting even more vociferously and incite the Palestinian street against it.
Hamas is not only the armed body that now dominates the Gaza Strip. It is first of all the political movement that won the majority of the votes of the Palestinian people in democratic elections — not only in the Gaza Strip, but in the West Bank, too. That will not change if Israel conquers the Strip tomorrow. On the contrary: Such a move may stigmatize Abbas as a collaborator in a war against his own people, and actually strengthen the roots of Hamas in the Palestinian public.
Olmert said that first of all the “terrorist infrastructure” must be eliminated, and only then can there be progress towards peace. This totally misrepresents the nature of a “terrorist infrastructure” — regrettable from a person whose father (like Tzipi Livni’s father) was a senior Irgun “terrorist”. It also shows that peace does not head the list of his aspirations — because that statement constitutes a deadly landmine on the way to an agreement. It is putting the cart in front of the horse.
The logical sequence is the other way round: First of all we have to reach a peace agreement that is acceptable to the majority of the Palestinians. That means (a) to lay the foundations for a state of Palestine whose border will run along the Green Line (with limited swaps of territory) and whose capital will be East Jerusalem, (b) to call upon the Palestinian people to ratify this agreement in a referendum, and (c) to call upon the military wing of Hamas to lay down their arms or to be absorbed into the regular forces of the new state, similarly to what happened in Israel, and join the political system in the new state.
If there were an assurance that this is the way things will go ahead, there is still a reasonable chance of convincing Hamas not to obstruct the process and to allow Abbas to manage it — as Hamas has agreed in the past.
Why? Because Hamas, like any other serious political movement, is dependent on popular support. At this point, with the occupation getting worse from day to day and all the routes to peace seemingly blocked, the Palestinian masses are convinced that the method of armed resistance, as practiced by Hamas, is the only one that offers them any hope. If the masses become convinced that the political path of Abbas is bearing fruit and is leading to the end of the occupation, Hamas, too, will be compelled to change course.
Unfortunately, the Annapolis conference did nothing to encourage such hopes. The Palestinian public, like the Israeli one, treated it with a mixture of distrust and disdain. It looks like an empty show run by a lame duck American president, whose only remaining pleasure is to be photographed as the leader of the world. And if Bush gets the UN resolution he wants to hide behind — another resolution that nobody will take seriously — it will not change anything.
Especially if it is true, as reported in the Israeli press, that the Israeli government is planning a huge expansion of the settlements, and if the army chiefs start another bloody war, this time in Gaza. —Arab News



A collapsing regime?
Hua Liming


IRAN began to carry out research on nuclear technology in the 1950s. It was one of the first countries to set about developing nuclear technology after the United States and the Soviet Union. By the 1970s, it had put in place a research reactor, six nuclear research centers and five uranium treatment facilities under the support of the United States and other Western countries. Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1971 and soon afterward became a shareholder in the European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium, or Eurodif, a uranium enrichment plant operator in France. In 1974, it began to build a nuclear power station in Bushehr, a coastal city on the Persian Gulf, with the help of West Germany. All this took place in pro-U.S. Iran under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlevi during the Cold War. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran turned against the United States. Washington’s policy on Iran’s nuclear program has since taken a U-turn.
All the NPT signatories, except the five major nuclear powers, pledged not to develop nuclear weapons. But they have the right to use nuclear energy peacefully and are entitled to assistance from nuclear-capable countries. As a signatory to the treaty, Iran has promised not to develop nuclear weapons. For a time, it also observed the additional protocol to the NPT, which subjected itself to snap inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iranian authorities have always stressed that Iran’s nuclear technology is solely for peaceful purposes. Given these facts, Iran has taken the legal high ground. However, the United States accuses Iran, a country that it labels as part of the “axis of evil,” of taking liberty with the rules. Believing that it will be dangerous if Iran has the nuclear fuel production technology under its command, Washington has gone out of its way to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear technology. Growing concern Most countries do not agree with the American “axis of evil” notion and believe that Iran should have the right to peacefully use nuclear energy. But they also do not completely trust Iran on the nuclear issue for several reasons. First, since 1984, Iran has secretly built a complete nuclear fuel production cycle, including uranium conversion, the processing of enriched uranium and a heavy-water reactor, without IAEA safeguards. It was not until 2002 when an anti-government organization in Iran uncovered the program that the Iranian Government reported it to the nuclear watchdog. Second, Iran has refused to clarify the military nature of its nuclear program and the program’s relations with its Revolutionary Guards. Third, Iran has concealed from the IAEA that it purchased on the black market an advanced P-2 centrifuge to enrich uranium.
That’s why the IAEA so far has not confirmed in its reports that Iran’s nuclear program has been purely for peaceful purposes. It has demanded that Iran suspend all uranium-enrichment activities until clarifications are made. For the IAEA and the UN, the Iranian nuclear issue is largely a technical issue. As long as Iran makes the necessary clarifications to win the trust of the international community, it will be able to enjoy the right to peacefully use nuclear energy like other NPT signatories. The United States, however, aims to change Iran’s regime by using the Iranian nuclear issue as a catalyst. This divergence is the crux of the hotly contested Iranian nuclear issue.
No nuclear weapons have been used since 1945 when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, the number of countries with nuclear weapons has risen from one to eight over the past six decades. Nuclear warheads owned or deployed by the five major nuclear powers recognized by the NPT-the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China-total some 14,300. Nuclear powers not recognized by the treaty-India, Pakistan and Israel-own about 200 nuclear warheads. These ammunitions are enough to destroy the Earth more than 100 times. Today, nuclear weapons are meant to be deterrents rather than used in wars. Most countries have them as a means of safeguarding their national security and enhancing their international standing. Double standard The NPT, a set of rules formulated under U.S. dominance, has played a role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was predicted three decades ago that there would be 30 countries today with nuclear weapons. However, there are only eight. Despite its positive role, the treaty cannot check the proliferation of nuclear weapons at its source. A fundamental challenge is that the world is not peaceful. In particular, the independence and sovereignty of some countries are under the threat of unilateralism and preemptive policy. That’s why some countries still fervently run after nuclear weapons, although they are not a panacea for safeguarding national security. The U.S. invasion of Iraq deterred Libya from pursuing its nuclear program but at the same time prompted other countries to step up their efforts to acquire nuclear technology.
Ironically, while forbidding other countries to develop nuclear weapons, the United States has quietly begun to increase its own nuclear arsenal. It has accelerated research on mini-nukes and robust nuclear earth penetrators. Its budget for the development and expansion of offensive nuclear forces was $6.8 billion in 2005, double what it was the decade before. The United States does not demand that Israel sign the NPT and turns a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear weapons. As a result, a large number of countries, especially Arab countries, refuse to sign the treaty. Some countries that have signed it secretly violate it. Others, such as North Korea, have publicly announced a withdrawal from the treaty. With its double standard, the United States has failed to live up to the expectations of people all over the world to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. How can it expect others to take the treaty seriously? The nuclear nonproliferation regime is at risk of collapse.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)




Why West must hug Tehran close
Simon Jenkins

ON Monday, no fewer than 16 American intelligence agencies revealed in a national intelligence estimate (NIE) that George Bush had no clothes. Iran did indeed halt its nuclear weapons program in response to the UN’s “48-day deadline” in autumn 2003. International diplomacy under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty worked and Iran has been telling the truth all along. This says not much about present-day Iran, but volumes about present-day America. The paradigm of Western policy toward the Muslim world is changing. The age of paranoid belligerence may be coming to an end. With the impending demise of the Republican ascendancy, sanity is pushing its head above the parapet. As during the McCarthy episode, America has taken the world to the brink of chaos and is now hauling it back. Bush’s “third world war” is on hold.
In his investigative masterpiece, The Target Is Destroyed, Seymour Hersh traced what happened to American intelligence after the Russian shooting down in 1983 of a Korean airliner. As raw material rose up the government hierarchy it was corrupted by agency politics and ideological spin until by the time it reached Cabinet level the truth was mangled. Intelligence became whatever a particular politician needed to bolster his cause. The same happened before the Iraq war. In 2003 Washington’s intelligence assessors dared not believe that Iran’s supposed nuclear program was “no immediate threat”. Now they dare. A previous assertion that Iran is “determined to develop nuclear weapons” becomes studied agnosticism. “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” — and has not restarted it. Even assuming a policy change, Iran could not achieve critical capability until 2010 and “may not have enough enriched uranium until after 2015”.
This is not especially enlightening. As between capability by 2010 and by 2015, a prudent strategist would assume the former. A maxim of Iranian politics is that even the predictable is impossible to predict. The outlook of this big, rich and boisterous nation is not that of a single dictator or political movement, as was the case in Iraq, but of a rambling coalition of forces, some hieratic and fanatical, some democratic and eager for rapprochement with the West. The former cannot be militarily defeated; the latter can be engaged. Since the turn of the century, Iran’s wilder heads have wanted a nuclear warhead. This is hardly surprising with nuclear powers ruling or in alliance to its east, north and West. Since the Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear to have at least some control over the nuclear program, this is no joke. To rely on “the moderates” to hold them in check would be as unwise as to rely on America’s Democrats to hold Cheney in check.

—Khaleej Times