Outraged In Riyadh

Is the House of Saud dumping Obama?

By Simon Henderson
This commentary was published in The Foreign Policy on 14/04/2011

U.S.-Saudi relations are in crisis. King Abdullah thinks the Obama administration's love of universal freedoms is naive and inappropriate for conservative Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, when the big threat is Iran. Washington is upset about the king's alleged offer to bail out Egypt if Hosni Mubarak had decided to cling to power. And there's also the oil factor: With U.S. gasoline prices climbing and despite Riyadh's promises to make up for lost Libyan hydrocarbon sales, the Saudis "throttled back production in mid-March," according to the International Energy Agency.

So when Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security advisor, sat down with the aging Saudi monarch on April 12, there were indeed "a number of issues of common interest" to be reviewed at the meeting, as the Saudi Press Agency dryly reported. Having initially warmed to the newly elected U.S. president, Barack Obama -- who in return offered apparently obsequious deference -- King Abdullah feels let down by the White House on pretty well everything from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to Iran, and especially Iran.

The Donilon meeting was particularly interesting because of the reported presence of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the onetime Saudi ambassador to Washington and now the seldom-seen secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council. For many years, especially when Prince Bandar was envoy to the United States, King Abdullah distrusted him: Too many of the snide stories that Prince Bandar told around town about the then crown prince got back to the kingdom. But Prince Bandar had, and perhaps still has, political and diplomatic talents that King Abdullah needs, especially now.

"Bandar Is Back" was the headline on an October 2010 piece I wrote for Foreign Policy about the prince's return home to Saudi Arabia; he had just resurfaced after mysteriously disappearing from the headlines for a couple of years. Although literally true, it was otherwise a little premature because the prodigal prince then disappeared from view again for several months. But in the last few weeks Prince Bandar indeed has been visibly back, on high-level missions to Pakistan, India, and China.

What it fully means is far from obvious, but there will be speculation about the future of Adel al-Jubeir, the current Saudi ambassador to Washington. Could there be a repeat of the first few weeks of Prince Turki al-Faisal's tenure as Saudi ambassador to the United States from 2005 to 2006, when King Abdullah let the White House know that his official envoy was no longer his chosen interlocutor with Washington?

Prince Turki's sin was not clear, but he had apparently written something to the king that incurred royal displeasure. Instead of dealing through Prince Turki, King Abdullah called back to the colors Prince Bandar, the previous ambassador, who went back and forth between Riyadh and Washington, repairing and nurturing the kingdom's most important foreign relationship, which was still troubled by suspicions of Saudi links to al Qaeda.

Prince Turki was left ambassador only in name. He sulked, not knowing whether Prince Bandar was even in town or not. To find out, he was often left to send an aide out to Dulles airport and Andrews Air Force Base to check to see whether Prince Bandar's aircraft was parked on the tarmac. Prince Turki eventually resigned and was replaced by Jubeir, a onetime aide to Prince Bandar whose English-language skills were much prized by King Abdullah. Since then Adel, as he is widely known, has schmoozed Washington but apparently ineffectively. "This White House just does not get it," one of his closest ambassadorial colleagues confided to me last month.

Adel was also at the Donilon meeting in Riyadh, performing his frequent task of acting as interpreter for the king, whether or not the meeting had anything to do with the United States. He had been also in the same chair the week before when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had passed through. There are smiles in the official photographs but no particular signs that the two sides are even on the same page.

King Abdullah cuts an increasingly pathetic figure. He underwent two operations on his back late last year in New York City and returned home from convalescence in Morocco earlier than his doctors recommended, I was told, because he was so worried by the revolutionary mood sweeping the Middle East. Although he can only manage two or three hours of official engagements each day, I am also told the burden of government is not easily shared. His notional successor, Crown Prince Sultan, is a vegetable, his appearance genial but his mind shot to shreds -- a WikiLeaked U.S. diplomatic cable said he was "for all intents and purposes incapacitated." The most likely next king is Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who runs the kingdom on a day-to-day basis but is currently vacationing abroad at an undisclosed destination, apparently sure of his power base within the House of Saud and the backing of the kingdom's religious conservatives.

Meanwhile, the king sees dangers all around him. He takes little pleasure in the demise of Egypt's Mubarak, a friend of Washington for 30 years who was cast aside in a mere 18 days. The man King Abdullah would like to see go to hell is Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, who once tried to assassinate him -- but Obama will not oblige. In neighboring Bahrain, King Abdullah views the majority Shiites as being untermenschen at best, Iranian agents at worst. Now, the king sees Syrian President Bashar al-Assad under increasing threat. The Saudi leader has a soft spot for Syria: One of his previous wives (too many to count but never more than the Islamic four-at-a-time) was from Syria, and her sister married Rifaat al-Assad, Bashar's uncle. One of the offspring of this marriage, Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah, now his father's point man on Syria, was also at the Donilon meeting.

As Donilon left Riyadh for the United Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi and then home, King Abdullah went off to the camel races with Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa at the annual Janadriyah festival. It would have offered some relaxation to the turmoil and frustrations of current Middle East politics.

Simon Henderson, the Baker fellow and director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Gulf and Energy Policy Program, is author of "After King Abdullah: Succession in Saudi Arabia."

The Palestinians’ Mistake In Seeking Statehood From The U.N.

By Aaron David Miller
This opinion was published in The Washington Post on 14/04/2011

In almost two decades of working on Arab-Israeli negotiations as a State Department adviser and negotiator, I’ve come up with more than my fair share of dumb ideas. But the notion Palestinians are cooking up, for U.N. action on Palestinian statehood this fall, takes dumb to a new level.

Yet another resolution won’t deliver Palestinians a state or even bring them closer to one. The result will be the opposite of what the Palestinians want: forcing the United States to oppose Palestinians’ efforts, energizing Congress to restrict much-needed assistance to Palestinian institution-building, and probably prompting Israel to do very real (and dumb) things on the ground.

Frustrated with the lack of movement toward statehood and lacking confidence in Israel, the United States and negotiations, Palestinians have convinced themselves that it’s time to determine their own future. In the past two years, the Palestinian Authority has done tremendous work in creating credible institutions that it believes should be validated through international support: the three R’s — rhetoric, resolutions and recognition.

What Palestinians hope to achieve from their latest efforts, however, is unclear — a campaign to recognize Palestine and lay the groundwork for admission to the United Nations, or merely to pressure Israel and the United States to get serious in negotiations?

Maybe it’s the last, because negotiations are the only possible path to statehood. That they can’t deliver now is no reason to embrace ideas that won’t work and that will leave Palestinians worse off than they already are.

No matter, the Palestinians argue. Perhaps inspired by the Arab Spring, they insist it’s time to act. The U.N. General Assembly created Israel through a partition resolution in 1947, this thinking goes; maybe it will work for us.

To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning, let me count the ways that it won’t:

First, a paper resolution, even one with monitoring and the threat of some collective action against Israel if no movement is made toward statehood, won’t produce a state. In fact, a U.N. campaign for statehood will reflect Palestinian weakness, not resolve. The Palestinian national movement today is divided; there are no guarantees that Hamas would support a U.N. campaign. The Palestinian Authority doesn’t control Gaza, most of the West Bank or its putative capital in East Jerusalem. An empty resolution in New York will score points where it doesn’t count and reflect a lack of capacity where it does — on the ground. Hamas gets more attention from Israel through its rockets than the Palestinians have gotten from their resolutions.

Second, actions produce reactions. No matter how artful and skillful the U.N. campaign is, the United States will almost certainly oppose it. Washington will veto the resolution in the Security Council. While it can’t block resolutions in the General Assembly, the United States won’t concede either the principle of declaring statehood outside of negotiations or marshaling international pressure against Israel.

The timing makes the Palestinian idea even more anomalous. To say that the Obama administration won’t risk spending political capital on an international campaign to isolate Israel in the U.N. General Assembly the year before a presidential election is probably the understatement of the century. And if the campaign pressuring Israel gets serious, Congress will be only too ready to restrict critical aid to the Palestinians and perhaps to Egypt as well if it helps lead the effort.

Third, there’s Israel, which is worried about isolation and de-legitimatization and very concerned about the Palestinian campaign. Time and again, however, the Israelis have shown that they will defy rather than submit to international pressure. Anti-Israeli resolutions at the United Nations will give Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu a perfect issue to rally support and to claim (yet again) that Israel has no partner with which to make peace. The Palestinian campaign will also prompt intensified Israeli settlement activity in an effort to remind Palestinians that Israeli actions are real, not virtual. Should the Palestinians declare statehood, Israel will probably act to demarcate what part of the West Bank it intends to keep.

Twelve years ago, during the Clinton administration, we faced another Palestinian campaign for a unilateral declaration of statehood. Ehud Barak’s election and Palestinian common sense averted it; instead, Israelis and Palestinians reached another interim agreement at Sharm al-Sheikh in September 1999.

Today, though, we won’t be nearly as lucky. Averting a train wreck on Palestinian statehood in New York this fall will require a serious Israeli approach to negotiations, a display of guts and strategy from the Obama administration, and a Palestinian national movement ready to make tough choices. If none of this materializes, we’ll have a leadership vacuum. And sadly, what’s likely to fill it are paper resolutions, rhetoric, more violence and empty promises.

Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for the State Department, is at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the author of the forthcoming book “Can America Have Another Great President?”

Easier To Ride A Lion Than To Rule Yemen!

By Ahmed al-Jarallah
This commentary was published in The Arab Times on 15/04/2011

THE recent events in Yemen have exposed the attempts of some people to drown the country in chaos. These people seem to have no desire for stability and reform, especially since they have rejected the GCC initiative on peaceful transition of power through a government formed by the opposition and for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to delegate his authority to his deputy. The European Union and the US fully support this plan because everyone understands the peculiar social and tribal circumstances, which might easily lead to war due to the unfaltering loyalty of each section to their respective groups.

Many observers wonder what the opposition really wants after the presentation of a flexible solution that guarantees the unity of Yemen and the continuity of constitutional institutions which must not collapse, or else, everything will crumble. This will be the worst scenario due to the ripple effect on the entire region. Everyone is now aware of some people’s attempt to take advantage of the situation to serve their personal interests. This has been manifested in the innocent blood spilt in armed conflicts that were confronted and defeated by Saleh, who also maintained national unity.

However, it is obvious that the opposition does not want stability in Yemen. They do not want to overcome the challenges of conspiracies. They have been rejecting peaceful resolutions proposed by Saleh or those from outside, such as the GCC initiative, which the president has accepted even if he had certain reservations.

The demands of those who have invaded some areas in Sana’a continue to grow day after day. We can compare their political stand to a famous saying: “There is a medicine for every ailment, except foolishness which thwarts the efforts of the healer”. They have rejected the initiatives of the authority without presenting better alternatives. They have intensified their violent acts; thereby, prompting the majority that supports Saleh to stand up, spread all over the country and reach the outside world. 

Meanwhile, the opposition remains defiant in its quest to change the regime through the collapse of constitutional institutions on the street, which is unacceptable to the neighboring countries and the outside world. The GCC had previously tried to support the demands of the opposition, more than the conditions given by the constitutional regime. In spite of the possibility that these demands might lead Yemen towards the unknown, the GCC still gave in a little for peace to reign in the region, hoping for logic to prevail sooner.

The opposition has failed to realize that some of its demands are beyond the capacity of the country - either economic or social. It has also forgotten that Yemen is unique but it is not isolated from its neighbors, so it needs help from others to overcome its economic difficulties. This is the first requirement for the successful implementation of reforms. Therefore, the dialogue initiated by the GCC is vital to save Yemen from civil war and separation. It is the only way to ensure the completion of the economic development projects that Saleh has been working on over the last three decades.

The entire world might turn against the opposition if the frivolous uprising continues. The only option is dialogue to protect the country and the people, who are now tired of the politics of protests and crippling of interests. If the opposition insists on ruling through coup and chaos, it will soon realize the statements of the late singer - Abdullah Al-Bardouni - are true: that it is easier to ride a lion than to rule Yemen where there are 60 million guns in the hands of 23.6 million people. In other words, every Yemeni owns three guns.

Is this enough to convince the opposition to stop pushing the country towards poverty and chaos?

We call on the hot-headed to be calm and sit at the dialogue table. People near and far will not allow Yemen to be transformed into a safe haven for terrorists or push it back to the era of separation of the North and South.

Obama's Middle East Dilemma

Dr Marwan Al Kabalan writes: The US president has been paying lip service to the promotion of democracy in the region
This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 15/04/2011

When US President Barack Obama used the Cairo University as a platform to lecture the Arab world on the merits of democracy a couple of years ago, he did not imagine that his words and speeches would be tested before the end of his presidency.

In fact, Arab revolutions have put Obama and his political advisers off guard and have presented them with a dilemma that needs to be dealt with at some point.

In Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and even in Libya, Washington seemed to have been quite content with the status quo.

It was forced to adjust its policy only when it became absolutely clear that change in these countries was inevitable. Several excuses have been given to justify the lack of interest by the Obama administration in democracy promotion in the Middle East.

Absorbed with his internal problems and preoccupied with re-establishing America's leadership abroad, Obama's utmost priorities are to resuscitate the US economy and end two unnecessary wars in the greater Middle East, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan, it has been argued.

Given the golden opportunity presented by the uprisings in the Arab world to advance the cause of democracy, however, these excuses are hardly convincing. Unlike the costly intervention in Iraq, for example, the US could contribute to establishing democracies in the Arab world at a cheap price.

Over the past two years, since he became president, Obama has not been really interested in the kind of rhetoric which featured prominently under his predecessor and focused on democratic change in the Middle East. Words such as ‘democracy promotion' have almost disappeared from Obama's public speeches. This trend brought to the fore the eternal question in US policy circles about the ability of America to live with democratic governments in the Middle East.

Shah experience

The thesis that America must support dictators or else accept to live with the very people it regards as dangerous for its interests and core values has become the compass that directs US policy in the Middle East under Obama.

His dilemma in dealing with the current events in the Arab world involves balancing the desire for establishing democracy with the risk of losing power to anti-US elements. His worry is that democracy in the Middle East may very well empower the very forces that the US opposes, i.e. Islamists.

Clearly, the US is still hostage to its unfortunate experience in Iran. Americans still remember with bitterness that in the 1970s when former US president Jimmy Carter demanded that the Shah should respect human rights, the domestic pressures that were unleashed helped overthrow his rule and bring about an Islamist government. The US cannot hide its fear of having similar experiences in the Arab countries where revolutions are taking place.

This prevalent view among US officials explains the hesitancy and the inconsistent policies of the Obama administration concerning Arab revolutions.

Right now Washington believes that Arab governments should heed the call for democracy at their own pace, otherwise America might end up rocking the boat too much.

Indeed, the Arab world has long moved ‘at its own pace' towards democracy. The result was almost no democracy at all. Until recently, this state of affairs seemed to have suited the US fine, because it was easier to deal with dictators than politicians worried about re-election.

Furthermore, there seems to be an attempt, as can be seen in the Obama administration's public statements, to set up the entire debate about democracy promotion in such a way as to make criticism particularly difficult — i.e. how can anyone be against gradual and peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy in the Arab world? Bearing in mind the Iraqi experience, how can anyone support a military intervention by the US in countries where atrocities are committed by regimes against their own people?

Inconsistencies

Under any circumstances however, it is difficult to prove that democracy promotion would be at the centre of US foreign policy, despite Obama's claim to the contrary. It seems also difficult to conclude anything other than that promotion of democracy in the Middle East was and remains a tool among many to promoting US interests rather than an end in itself.

Under the Obama administration, the pro-democracy rhetoric will be almost certainly overused by clear inconsistencies, as we have been witnessing since the outbreak of the Tunisian revolution.

In light of what has been said, it is believed that the Obama administration's commitment to democracy promotion is more of a public relations ploy than anything else. The reaction to the pro-democracy movement in the Arab world testifies to this fact.

Dr Marwan Al Kabalan is lecturer in Media and International Relations at Damascus University.

Libya And The Ivory Coast: External Change

By Mohammad el-Ashab

This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 14/04/2011

 

The outgoing former President of the Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, failed to abide by the logic of the peaceful transfer of power. He rebelled against the electoral legitimacy of President Alassane Ouattara as he was certain that the tribal rule is more lasting that the voting ballots. However, the Ivory Coast was only able to conclude this state on the rhythm of the massacres where all the conflicting sides were involved.

It seems that the French forces, which were tempted to use power in the face of the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, found a golden opportunity to try out their capacities through intervention in hot zones. They were supported in this by the fact that all the calls at Gabagbo to relinquish his illegal authority fell on deaf ears. The former president was rather inclined to hear the sound of firearms instead of the so-called African wisdom. The rulers of the Dark Continent have been regressing for a long while now and it seems that the African Union has so far failed to find a solution to the Libyan problem although the use of power had preceded the peaceful attempts that were only stirred when it was too late.

The end of Gabagbo in the Ivory Coast could constitute a harsh lesson that Gaddafi must learn. The latter used to tan his face in order to look African and he has witnessed the failure of the Arab countries to support him in the face of the Lockerbie siege. However, he will be unable to look at his face in the mirror because Gabagbo seems to be spreading his shadow through all the corners.

The Ivory Coast was no exception to the conflicts of brothers-enemies over power access following every election. From Kenya to Zimbabwe, and from Guinea to the African jungles, there have been wars and conflicts close to the logic of power violation through military coups. It seems that the African democratic spring was not quite flowery. To say the least, it has been ruined by the concept of monopolization which pushed rulers to hang on to their posts even if this had to take place over human skulls.

Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the African continent opened up to the prototypes of change. It could have settled for the concern of peaceful power transfer if it wasn’t for the tribal and political conflicts that pushed in the direction of aborting all the changes that ended up becoming internal conflicts. The latter brought instability and insecurity in addition to piled up hatred and reprisals. On the other hand, the West was unaware of the African events except for the aspect related to the flow of the economic and commercial interests.

Decades and years went by, and Africa was unable to find the road of salvation. All the recipes that were offered for a change that is based on consolidating the promising and young features of democracy have failed to set the rhythm of the African movement on the tunes of openness, forgiveness, and the relinquishing of tribal, racial, and geographic conflicts. However, the Western feelings - that should have been translated into major projects in order to help the Dark Continent exit the tunnel of underdevelopment, the political and economic repercussions, and the natural disasters, and the masses of the refugees – are just standing still in the wrong direction.

Until the near past, it seemed that the North African region, as a result of its proximity of the northern bank of the Mediterranean Sea, is capable of reflecting a creative version of the Arab-African dialogue that is more effective in developing the features of the alliance. However, the region did not reap any benefits from its geographic location as it only obtained the masses of African refugees looking for a place to secure their dignity under the sun. Meanwhile, the countries of the region are facing major deadlines on the road of the change that was launched by the anger of the Street through the revolutions aiming at overthrowing the regimes that failed to match the sweeping democratic concerns.

Only one thing can hinder this fusion; it consists of all the forms of foreign interference. This is because no matter what the capacity [of foreign interference] is in settling internal conflicts, it does warn of dire consequences. These would affect both the people in power, and the people who are handling the fighting of the ground, and those who impose their authority with the support of the raiding airplanes, even if this authority is based on voting ballots. The internal forces of change remain more useful unless the external interference is coupled with political and economic initiatives aimed at supporting development and at consolidating democracy.

The Dove Of Peace Over The American Capital

By Amir Taheri
This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 15/04/2011

Washington, the capital of the United States, was founded after the American Revolution against a backdrop of war. In 1814, the British burned it to the ground, re-emphasising the connection of the city, named after a general, with war.

Not surprisingly, the American capital is full of war monuments.
 
Today, the US military budget, some 4.5 per cent of its annual Gross Domestic Product, is equal to the combined expenditure of Russia, China and the European Union on defence.
 
Last month, Washington acquired a monument to peace- a new touch to the city's famous skyline.

Between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol and passing by the Kenned Center stands the United States’ Peace Institute with its white roof that evokes the wings of a dove. The structure has been named the Ansary Peace Dove after Hushang Ansary, the philanthropist and business leader from Houston, Texas.
 
By coincidence, the monument was inaugurated by President George W H Bush at exactly the time US warplanes had started bombing Libya on orders from the incumbent Barack Obama.
At a ceremony the following night, all four former presidents still living were present.
 
The guests might have remembered that, in one way or another, all four had been involved in wars.
 
In fact, all 44 men who have served as US president so far have been involved in at least one war.
 
For the past 60 years, the United States has had the most powerful war machine in history.
 
However it has never been comfortable with war.
 
History shows that in almost every case the US was sucked into wars that initially had little or nothing to do with its national interests.
 
Also in almost every case, the chief concern of US leaders was to disengage from the war.
 
With one or two notable exceptions, the US never sought total victory.
 
In some cases, such as the war against Spain, victory proved troublesome for the US by landing it with colonial possessions that required decades to get rid of.
 
The Americans were almost always happy to see a war end in a fishtail, allowing the US to withdraw gracefully.
 
This was the case with the Korean War, although, in a sense, it is not yet ended.
 
In some cases, such as the Vietnam War and the mini-wars in Lebanon and Somalia, even a disgraceful departure was seen as better than staying stuck in long conflicts.
 
Jimmy Carter, an exceptional president in many ways, invented an original way of waging war.
 
In 1980, he ordered the invasion of Iran with six helicopters and two transport aircrafts with the mission to rescue American diplomats whose seizure as hostages was a declaration of war on the US.
 
When the mission failed, Carter just wrote a letter to the Iranian despot Ayatollah Khomeini begging for “improved relations”.
 
He showed that what counted in the end was not having power but the courage to use whatever power one has.
 
In early decades, the Americans chose some victorious, or at least prestigious, generals as president.
 
However, over the past century the tide has turned against the military.
 
The last time Americans rooted for a victorious general was in 1952 when they elected Dwight Eisenhower president.
 
The list of presidents who won wars but were kicked out of office is long, from Teddy Roosevelt to George Bush Senior.
 
Other presidents, like Lyndon Johnson, were destroyed by wars they could not bring to an end. In Johnson’s case, the tragic irony was that, in domestic policy, he was one of the most successful of American presidents.
 
Even winning two wars, as was the case with George W Bush, is not enough to ensure lasting popularity for a US president. And what about Harry Truman who left office as the most unpopular president in US history, despite his role in wining the Second World War?
 
Such is the United States economic and military power that winning a war, almost any war, abroad is not difficult for it. What is difficult for any American leader is winning the war on the domestic front.
 
The problem is complicated because most wars start by being popular but quickly end up unpopular.
 
Remember the surge of support for an invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. In December of that year, 92 per cent of Americans backed the war. A year later, that figured had halved. Today, 10 years later, only 18 per cent support continued involvement in Afghanistan.
 
And what about the war to liberate Iraq from Ba’athist oppression?
 
Never in US history had a war been so strongly supported by the US Congress. And, yet, barely a year later, its most enthusiastic supporters such as Senator John Kerry were trying hard to distance themselves from it.
 
The story of the US involvement in Libya is even more interesting.
 
A week before the bombing began, editorials were clamouring for action against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's tyrannical regime. Three days after the bombing had started, the same editorials were opposing “the war.”
 
This is why Obama, who has bested his predecessors in his desire to be re-elected at any cost, decided to invent a new American way of ending a war: pretending that it has ended and, then, whistling and walking away.
 
Obama is like a man who accepts an invitation to a party but leaves as soon as he feels he doesn’t like it.
 
It is possible that Obama’s decision to walk away was a key element in persuading Gaddafi to hang on to a power he thought he had already lost.
 
Gaddafi will in the end be booted out. But history would show that Obama’s decision might have prolonged the Libyan war.
 
What Obama seems to ignore is that by scripting the US out of war situations that constitute an inevitable part of international life he is also ending America’s role as peacemaker.
 
In other words, as long as international conflict resolution is concerned, he is rendering the US irrelevant.
 
A look at the various crises under way across the globe would show that Obama has been successful in transforming the US from a leading participant into an almost forgotten spectator.
 
Not willing to wage war and thus, despite the beautiful dove in Washington, unable to promote peace either.

Well, may be that is what Obama really wanted. Who knows?

Camp Ashraf Is A Barometer Of Iraq's Human Rights

Iraq's response to the alleged massacre of Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf is a window on the country's human rights progress

By Kate Allen
This commentary was published in The Guardian on 14/04/2011

 

Iraqi soldiers patrol near burned trailers at Camp Ashraf, Iraq, last week. Photograph: Karim Kadim/AP

 

It's a little-known story outside of specialist circles but the strange fate of a group of Iranians exiled in Iraq is becoming an important measure of Iraq's willingness to adhere to international human rights standards.

Since the mid-1980s, Iraq has been host to a contingent of Iranians opposed to the Iranian government. They are the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), also known by various other names including Mujahedin-e Khalq.

Having waged an armed struggle against the Iranian authorities dating back to the 1970s and the days of the shah, they were offered shelter by Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government in 1986 and they've remained to this day.

Since Saddam was toppled in 2003 their sojourn in Iraq has been a fraught affair. The invading US forces first bombed their bases, seeing them as a military threat. After the invasion they were disarmed, accorded "protected person" status under the Geneva conventions and afforded protection by US forces at Camp Ashraf, a sprawling informal settlement in Diyala province, 40 miles north-east of Baghdad that currently houses around 3,400 people.

From the middle of 2009, responsibility for them was transferred to the Iraqi authorities, since which time their future has become increasingly uncertain. This week the Iraqi government said that the PMOI must leave the country by the end of the year. The official ultimatum includes the declaration that they would be forced out "using all means".

Given recent events it's a chilling statement. Last Friday Iraqi troops in armoured personnel carriers moved into the camp and reportedly opened fire on residents who had tried to resist the incursion. Video clips uploaded by the PMOI to YouTube appear to show Iraqi soldiers firing indiscriminately into crowds and using vehicles to try to run people down. It's impossible to verify a figure, but the PMOI claim that 34 Camp Ashraf residents were killed and 300 injured.

It's not the first time there have been deadly attacks of this kind. In July 2009 Iraqi security forces bulldozed their way into the camp and reportedly used batons, tear gas and water cannon against unarmed residents. As clashes developed the Iraqi forces opened fire, killing at least nine people and injuring some 400. In addition, 36 residents were arrested, held for over two months (in defiance of court orders for their release) and reportedly tortured before being released without charge.

The residents of Camp Ashraf have every reason to feel they're living in a state of siege. A constant military presence has made it difficult for inhabitants to access medical treatment inside and outside the camp. An Iraqi security committee controls what medical supplies go in as well as who can travel outside the camp for specialist treatment. There were worrying reports on Friday of wounded people who could not be treated because of inadequate medicines or equipment.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi authorities are barely paying lip-service to their obligation to properly investigate these deeply troubling events. Nouri al-Maliki's government has said it will investigate last week's violence, but it said that in 2009 as well. In common with scores of other "investigations" in the country, nothing more has been heard of it.

And neither is Iraq coming under much international pressure over Camp Ashraf. The UK's foreign office minister Alistair Burt said he was "disturbed" by the loss of life and supported a UN monitoring mission to the camp, but generally there's been relatively little reaction. A letter in the Guardian bemoaned the "blanket of silence" surrounding it.

Drowned out by Libya, Syria and Ivory Coast, violence at Camp Ashraf is at risk of being all but ignored. Amnesty is calling for an independent investigation into Friday's blood-letting as well as assurances that no one at Ashraf is going to be forced out of Iraq if their lives are put in danger.

Camp Ashraf doesn't come close to fitting into the "Arab spring" narrative (though meanwhile Iraq's own protests have in fact been well-attended, ruthlessly put down and almost totally unreported). But the world should start paying attention to this forgotten story. How Iraq treats the residents of Camp Ashraf will provide an important window into how far Iraq has come in respecting human rights.