March 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb		Apr »
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Archive for 23. March 2010

Obama’s Pending Foreign Policy Agenda

23. March 2010 by admin.

THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS PASSED President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform package late Sunday night, ending a domestic battle that has defined the first year of his presidency. As this major domestic issue moves out of the spotlight, it will free up some time for Obama to address other items, such as foreign policy. Several issues will require his presidential attention now that he has the ability to focus with fewer distractions at home:

China: The recent tensions between the United States and China could possibly flare into a full-blown trade war in the coming months. As both countries have attempted to get back to pre-crisis levels of economic growth, it is only natural that their interests would collide at some point. A series of tit-for-tat acts of protectionism have now been exacerbated by the return of an argument dating back to the Bush years over the “correct” value of the renminbi, which keeps Chinese exports cheap and its economy moving ahead. The United States sees a glaring trade imbalance with the Chinese as the biggest roadblock standing in the way of more rapid economic growth, while Beijing views Obama’s new export initiative with caution.

U.S. midterm elections are quickly approaching in November, and China-bashing unites the American electorate like few other topics do. Bearing this in mind, the U.S. Treasury will issue a report on April 15 that may label China a currency manipulator, a decision heavily imbued with political overtones that could invite Congress to pass more penalties against China. There is a consensus within the American political establishment that China is, in fact, a currency manipulator; the question is whether Washington wants to consciously exacerbate tensions with Beijing by officially calling it out as such, and threatening it with the added tariffs that such a designation would ultimately entail. Whatever decision the U.S. government makes will have a direct bearing on the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that is scheduled to be held between the two nations in May, the tone of which will be set by the conclusion of the White House-backed Treasury report.

Iran

The country that had the most potential to draw the United States into yet another Middle East war during Obama’s first year in office is happy to watch from the sidelines as Israel struggles on the Iranian and Palestinian fronts vis-a-vis the United States. After all the talk of sanctions deadlines and hints of military action in the Persian Gulf, the United States has ramped down its efforts toward establishing crippling sanctions against Iran. The reason for this is not because the Iranians are believed to have stopped pursuing nuclear weapons (they have not), or that Israel all of the sudden finds itself resigned to the inevitability of an Iranian nuke (it is not), but rather that the United States feels neither of the two have the ability to directly launch effective attacks against one other. This situation will hold as long as Iran does not cross the ambiguous “line in the sand.” For the moment at least, the United States does not appear to be too concerned with Iran.

Israel

The Tuesday meeting scheduled to take place in Washington between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will occur when American-Israeli relations are at one of the lowest points they have been in years, perhaps decades. The timing of the announcement that Israel would continue apace with housing construction in East Jerusalem — delivered during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel two weeks ago — was interpreted by Washington as an intentional insult, designed to demonstrate that Israel would not budge when it comes to U.S. demands on the issue of Jerusalem. That is a political issue on which Netanyahu feels he cannot bend. However, the net effect of this could be diminishing support from Israel’s strongest ally, something far more damaging to Israeli national security than a long-standing domestic policy issue.

Russia

One country that has been delighted to read about the United States’ problems with China and Iran has been Russia. It has seized the opportunity to operate in its near abroad and continue upon its mission of resurging into the former Soviet periphery. Moscow most recently reasserted its influence over Ukraine with the election of pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovich as president, and the intimidating effects of its 2008 invasion of Georgia –- which was done without any retaliation by Washington -– continue to linger in the Caucasus. With Belarus, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan being drawn back into the Russian sphere of influence, the Baltics could be next on the Kremlin’s target list.

So far, Obama has been too concentrated on health care and the brewing crisis in Iran –- not to mention a muddling economic recovery, troop increases in Afghanistan and trying to wind down the U.S. presence in Iraq — to focus his attention meaningfully on the Russian resurgence beyond token gestures. But the difference between Moscow tampering with its former possessions in the Ukraine and the Caucasus is one thing; venturing into countries that have since joined NATO and the European Union is another. Russia knows that U.S. commitments in the Middle East will not last much longer, and with the possibility of a more foreign policy-focused American president who can more actively resist Russian advances now on the table, Russia may see a need to speed up the course of events.

Possibly seeking to exploit the growing rift between the United States and Israel are the Palestinians, Iranians and Hezbollah. Sources have reported that elements from all three groups, as well as Gaza-based Islamist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are engaged in talks surrounding plans to launch a third Palestinian intifadah against Israel. This would be dependent upon a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and the success of their discussions over how to prepare a militant response to Israel. Another intifadah, replete with mass uprisings in the West Bank, rockets fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the possibility of Hezbollah cooperation from Lebanon would certainly please Tehran. Not only would this force Israel into military involvement in its territories, it would also further strain relations with the United States, thus empowering Iran’s position in the Middle East.

It is with these reports in the backdrop that Netanyahu will go to the White House on Tuesday. Normally, meetings by visiting heads of state are accompanied by photo-ops and press conferences designed to put a happy face forward for the cameras and the world. Tomorrow’s meeting will reportedly lack such trappings. This indicates that Obama wants to carefully control the image of this first battery of talks as he emerges from the sphere of domestic politics to face a list of pending foreign policy issues.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Israel, Palestinian Territories: Rumors of a Third Intifada

23. March 2010 by admin.

Israel, Palestinian Territories: Rumors of a Third Intifada

March 22, 2010

Senior Fatah leader Nabil Shaath speaking to the media on February 3.

Senior Fatah leader Nabil Shaath speaking to the media on Feb. 3

As the leaders of Israel and the United States meet in Washington amid a backdrop of fraying U.S.-Israeli ties, Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah, with apparent Iranian nudging, are working to reconcile through a renewed — albeit redefined — intifada.

With U.S.-Israeli relations under severe stress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on an emergency trip to Washington on March 22-23. While the United States and Israel attempt to sort out the thorny issues of East Jerusalem settlement building and how to prevent a nuclear-capable Iran, Hamas and Fatah back in the Palestinian Territories are trying to cobble together a unified — and possibly militant — response to Israel, with some likely nudging from Iran.

Rumors have been circulating in the Palestinian Territories about a possible third intifada against Israel. In the past, an intifada represented a coalition of Palestinian factions in a united popular uprising against Israel. Such an intifada was distinct from the large-scale suicide (and later) rocket attacks by militant factions, and would involve mass demonstrations, riots, rock-throwing, firebombing, large funeral processions and the general engagement of the Palestinian populace. But the Palestinian territories are not what they were in 2000, when the last intifada broke out.

Today, Israeli troops only remain in occupation of the West Bank, and Hamas and Fatah are split geographically, politically, militarily and economically between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, respectively. There are Israeli security targets in the West Bank, but the Fatah leadership is extremely hesitant to invite armed conflict in its territory since that would undermine its internal cohesion and end up benefiting Hamas. While Hamas would prefer an intifada to be waged from rival territory in the West Bank, Fatah would like Hamas to initiate conflict through rocket fire targeting southern Israel, thus inviting the bulk of Israeli retaliatory action to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and sparing Fatah most of the damage.

These disagreements over how to proceed with a unified armed conflict run deep, and are the current subject of debate in lower-level meetings between Hamas and Fatah officials in Beirut. A redefined intifada could be in the cards, one in which Hamas and Fatah could attempt to reunite politically and thus allow Hamas to end its isolation in Gaza, but would still have Hamas bearing the brunt of Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip. It appears Iran is advocating this plan. Tehran by no means has absolute control over Palestinian decision-making, but it has steadily increased its influence over Hamas in recent years.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a smaller political and militant faction based in Gaza Strip that has the closest ties with Iran, is pushing for Hamas-Fatah reconciliation through a renewed intifada. The talks are being pushed primarily by PIJ official Khalid al-Batsh. In another sign of an Iranian hand in this conflict, a STRATFOR source in Hamas claims that Hezbollah has pledged to support an armed struggle in Gaza by sending men and munitions to the territories to help in laying ambushes for Israeli troops and tanks in the event of future Israeli incursions. The source claims that Israel’s recent airstrikes in Rafa were in response to accelerated arms smuggling by Hezbollah in the border tunnels leading to Gaza.

On the negotiations front, the PIJ pushed for a recent meeting reportedly held in Damascus upon the request of Fatah between Hamas deputy politburo head Musa Abu Marzuk and Fatah central committee head Azzam al Ahmad. (Hamas legislator Salah Bardawil denied such a meeting had occurred.) The talks began in late February in Gaza between Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Fatah leader Nabil Shaath, who paid a visit to Gaza. The Iranian government, which recently announced its intent to bring Hamas and Fatah back together, has “lifted the veto on Hamas and Fatah reconciliation under Egyptian auspices,” according to these sources. In the past, it has also been reported that Iranian officials reprimanded Hamas officials in Damascus for attempting negotiations with Fatah, preferring to keep the two factions split. Now, however, Iran appears convinced that Palestinian reconciliation will not lead to the resumption of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis in the current tense atmosphere.

The overall goal is thus to exploit the breach in the U.S.-Israeli relationship to reunify the Palestinian leadership and encourage Israeli military action in the territories that would further undermine Israel’s diplomatic efforts in building a coalition against Iran. While this is by no means an intifada, or popular uprising in the traditional sense of the word, it does point to another potential crisis in Israeli-Palestinian relations that would consequently complicate U.S. designs for the region.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

India: Explosive Device Found on Airliner

23. March 2010 by admin.

India: Explosive Device Found on Airliner

March 22, 2010

Indian security officers guard a gate at the International Airport in Bangalore in March 2007

An explosive device was discovered aboard an airliner in India March 21, but the device’s crude design meant it posed no immediate threat to the flight and is unlikely to be part of recent al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba threats to hijack flights in India.

A crude explosive device was found aboard a turbo-prop plane operated by Kingfisher Airlines (Flight IT-4731) in the town of Thiruvananthapuram in the southern Indian state of Kerala. The flight from Bangalore had landed at approximately 8 a.m. March 21. Shortly after it landed and the passengers had deplaned, a member of either the Central Industrial Security Force or a member of the maintenance crew (reports have varied) discovered an unusual object in the cargo hold of the plane.

An explosive ordnance team was called to the scene and secured the object. Police have said the device consisted of approximately 20 grams of sulfur, potassium chlorate and aluminum powder (a mixture called flash powder often used in fireworks) wrapped in several sheets of newspapers dated March 13 and bound by coir rope — a common, homemade material in India made out of natural materials such as coconut fiber. No initiator was found attached to the mixture of powder. The entire object was about 9 inches in diameter, about the size of a baseball.

It is unclear at this point who placed the suspicious object there or what his or her motivation was. Given that there was no indication of an initiator attached to the object to provide a spark to ignite the mixture, it was unlikely to detonate as it was, meaning the flight does not appear to have been in immediate danger. The lack of an initiator would also make this device more difficult to notice. Many timed or remote initiators would employ metallic materials such as switches and wires that would be relatively easy to detect by security officials in Bangalore. The device was accessible to passengers in the cabin, however, so it is possible that someone on the flight could have ignited it with a lighter or match.

Certainly, the flash powder contained in the device was volatile, but it is more likely this device would have caused a small fire rather than a violent explosion. Pressure is required to produce significant explosions involving low-explosive mixtures such as the flash powder found on the Kingfisher flight. Often, amateur bombmakers will place their devices in pressure cookers or metal pipes to add more power — even firecrackers are wrapped tightly in cardboard to create a bang. But wrapping this material in flimsy newspaper would allow the outside to burn if ignited, allowing the gases to escape slowly rather than building up pressure to explode. Fire on board an aircraft is still certainly a threat, especially with respect to smoke inhalation, meaning this incident cannot simply be dismissed, but unlike violent explosions that can instantly incapacitate an aircraft, fires are more controllable.

State law enforcement officials are investigating the incident to determine who put the device on the plane and if it was put there maliciously. India’s aviation sector has been on high alert since Jan. 22, when Indian government authorities received intelligence that al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba were plotting to hijack Indian operated flights to other south Asian countries. Considering this device did not pose an immediate threat and the flight it was found on was relatively small and domestic, it is unlikely that this was part of any serious terrorist threat. The elements of the incident do not match with the more professional tradecraft evident in past al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks in India.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »