A BREAKTHROUGH ON THE GOLAN HEIGHTS FRONT?

"Damascus,(SANA)- Syria and Israel have started off indirect peace talks under the patronage of Turkey…where both sides have expressed desire to conduct talks with good intention and have decided to pursue dialogue between them seriously and sustainably for the achievement of comprehensive peace in line with reference of Madrid Peace Conference.

The source added:" Syria highly appreciates in that connection the incessant efforts that have been exerted by Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan , and the role of Turkey for over a year .

It is noteworthy to say that President Bashar al-Assad told Qatari daily alWattan recently that the Turkish mediation which continued from April last year until April this year was led by Erdogan.

The president indicated that the talks will be indirect through the Turkish mediation which will convey the basic data for finding a common ground which will be the basis for initiating direct negotiations later.

"An Official Foreign Ministry Source: Syria and Israel Have Indirect Peace Talks Under Turkish Patronage". in www.sana.sy/eng

"Negotiations with Syria will not be easy and will not be simple, it may take a long time and it will involve concessions....After evaluating all the data and receiving the opinion of the defence establishment, I reached the conclusion that the chance [for success] is greater than the risk, and with this hope we are today getting on our way".
Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, speaking on the 21st of May, in www.haaretz.com.

As I have predicted here in the past couple of weeks, all of the balance of forces are in the direction of an Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations and eventually a 'deal'. A sort of 'peace of the strong'. Those voices who worried or better yet predicted the possibility of a Syrian-Israeli War coming about, were I thought than, and, even more so think now, entirely mistaken. Neither Damascus or Tel Aviv, have much to gain from any conflict. Both have much to gain diplomatically from a peace accord. In the case of Damascus: to regain the Golan, to come out of the American-sponsored, diplomatic ice-box, to join the rest of the Near Eastern region's economic upswing. In the case of Tel Aviv: to gain peace on its northern front, to reduce the number of its enemies by one (and indeed the most important one), to also clamp down permanently the Lebanese-Hezbollah front as well, to reduce the Persian-radical Shiite influence in the region and to furthermore isolate the regime in Teheran (for this motivation, see: "Israelis see Syria peace as way to curb Iran [Persia] influence", in www.afp.com.

Of course all of the above was foreseeable as far back as two years ago. Unfortunately the Bush regime, in the full flush of its 'pro-Democracy' blindness and hubris, deliberately chose to ignore those voices in Tel Aviv, pleading for an opportunity to pursue the diplomatic option vis-`a-vis Damascus. Now it would appear that the American 'veto', has been either broken or ignored by Olmert (for the breakdown of the American 'veto' power in the region, as least in part, see: "White House Policies crumble as US allies make peace moves in the region," in www.dailystar.com.lb). Whichever one it is, the timing could not be better, given the modus viviendi that was agreed to in Doha by the opposing parties in the Lebanon most recently. Of course no one should expect an immediate peace accord. Negotiations will be protracted and difficult. Indeed, I do not expect anything to be agreed at concretely until the arrival of the next American President in 2009. Then and only then, will a positively green light be given to Olmert, et. al., to arrive at an accord with the regime of Assad fils. Nothing of the sort can be expected from the current crew in Washington, DC. As was made quite clear from the press briefing at the State Department, where the entire matter was discussed through gritted teeth and the verbal equivalent of frowns (see: www.state.gov) . From the next administration, it is entirely possible, and, indeed probable that a peace deal between these two longstanding antagonists, will be welcomed. Indeed, one can well imagine on the White House lawn no less...

THE DIALECTICS OF DEFEAT: THE LEBANESE DEBACLE APPRAISED, PART TWO

"The United States welcomes the agreement reached by Lebanese leaders in Doha, Qatar. We view this agreement as a positive step towards resolving the current crisis by electing a President, forming a new government, and addressing Lebanon’s electoral law, consistent with the Arab League initiative. The United States supports the government of Lebanon and its complete authority over the entire territory of the country.

The United States commends the efforts of the Arab League’s committee of Foreign Ministers, in particular the leadership of the Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, and Secretary General Amr Moussa.

We call upon all Lebanese leaders to implement this agreement in its entirety, in accordance with the Arab League initiative and in conformity with UN Security Council resolutions".
American Secretary of State Rice, 21st of May, in www.state.gov

"You must either conquer and rule, or serve and lose. Suffer or triumph, be the anvil or the hammer".
Wolfgang von Goethe

The news from Doha indicates that the prediction made here one week ago, that the March 14 coalition would eventually capitulate to the Persian-backed opposition, has come to pass. As per the Financial Times, the two sides, have come to an agreement, in the talks sponsored by the Arab League in which Hezbollah will be given veto power over the decisions inside the Lebanese Cabinet, as well as allowed to retain its weapons arsenal(see: www.ft.com). The only saving grace for the 14th of March coalition, is that permission has finally been given for General Michel Suleiman, the Army Commander to be finally elected President. General Suleiman while in origins a compromise candidate, is on the whole likely to be friendly, if not in an overt fashion to the 14th of March coalition, and, not an adherent of either Syria, or Hezbollah and its Persian backers. Overall, it is true to say that given the realities on the ground in the Lebanon since the failed Israeli War of 2006, no effort to rule the country without taking into account the power and influence of Hezbollah and its allies could have persisted for very long or successfully. The fact that the Siniora Cabinet managed to remain in office for almost twenty months after the end of the 2006 conflict remains in retrospect something close to miraculous. The agreement arrived at Doha reflects those underlying realities. To pretend that Lebanon could have remained firmly in the Western Camp, after what occurred and did not occur in the summer of 2006, is (in the words of Neville Chamberlain) 'the very mid-summer of madness'.

Need I or anyone else for that matter add, that outcome in Doha, represents a defeat, an unmitigated and absolute defeat for the Bush regime's diplomacy in the Lebanon for the last three years? The fact that both Secretary Rice and Assistant Secretary Welch attempted to put a positive face on this defeat does not obviate the reality of what has now occurred. The only saving grace perhaps is the knowledge that given the debacle of the Lebanon War of 2006, in the short to medium term, no other outcome could be expected.

THE DIALECTICS OF DEFEAT: THE LEBANESE DEBACLE APPRAISED.

"Hezbollah continues to pose a challenge to the future of the Lebanese people in terms of realizing a broad-based, deep democracy that benefits all of the Lebanese people. You – we have seen over the past several days that Hezbollah is willing to kill Lebanese in the interest of their political agenda, which seems to have really no basis other than to try to expand their political power. It operates outside the political system in Lebanon.

And our view is, along with others, not only in the region, but around the world, is that we are going to continue to do what we can to strengthen this Lebanese Government that is democratically elected, that seeks only to govern on behalf of all the Lebanese people, to expand – extend its sovereignty over all of Lebanon, and to broaden and deepen Lebanese democracy, and to fiercely guard Lebanon’s sovereignty. It’s in – we believe in the Lebanese people’s interest, we believe it is in Lebanon’s interest. That is going to be a continuing challenge as long as you have groups like Hezbollah that are, at the very least, largely influenced, at the other end of the spectrum, controlled by parties outside of Lebanon: Iran and Syria.

So that is going to be a continuing – that is going to be a continuing challenge for the Lebanese people. It’s going to be a continuing challenge for those in the international system who have an interest in a more peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Lebanon. So it remains our view that we are going to stand with those democratically elected leaders who continue to fight on behalf of Lebanese democracy.
QUESTION: Why isn’t this appeasement?"

State Department, Spokesman, Thomas McCormack, 15 April 2008 in www.state.gov

Yes, indeed! Well if not necessarily appeasement, then something along the lines of a de facto acknowledgement by the State Department and official Washington in general, that American policy for the last few years, since in fact 2005 and the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri by Syrian agents, of seeking a pro-Western, 'Democratic', Lebanon, is in shambles if not in fact completely destroyed. The American and Saudi, Egyptian, French backed Sinioria government, chose one week ago to directly challenge the Persia and Syrian backed Hezbollah movement, in the latter's de facto control of Beirut's airport. Hezbollah responded to this action, immediately and dramatically occupying much of west Beirut as well as parts of the Shouf mountain, near the capital. And, just as quickly the Sinioria government used the fitful intervention of the army to back-down completely in a face saving compromise. However much the Bush regime may talk of upholding Lebanese sovereignty and integrity, as well as praise itself for its program of arming the Lebanese Army, the fact of the matter is that the Lebanese Army was again revealed this past week to be a completely worthless instrument of American or for that fact, any other power's, policy. As several postings this week on Joshua Landis's always excellent, online journal, Syria Comment (www.Syriacomment.com) note, the debacle this past week, is a mirror image of past attempts by the USA, to directly (1983-1984) or indirectly (1957-1958, et passim) change Lebanon's place in the regional constellation of powers, in a pro-Western / pro-American direction. In many such instances, the USA would talk of using the Lebanese Army as a means of such a policy. And, just as often, the Lebanese Army has showed itself to be completely useless. If not worse. The upshot of last week's events shows that unless there is a drastic change in the correlation of forces on the ground in Lebanon, the stalemate between the Siniora government and its pro-Persian / pro-Syrian opponents will continue. And, however unfortunate it may be, there is not much that the USA can do about it. Call it appeasement if you like but that is the reality of the situation.

THE MEDVEDEV INHERITANCE: DIPLOMATIC PROSPECTS

"Dmitry Medvedev was due on Wednesday to be inaugurated as Russia’s president in succession to Vladimir Putin, who will become prime minister. For the first time in Russia’s turbulent history, a leader in good health is peacefully handing over the keys of the Kremlin to a legally approved successor.

The symbolism should not hide the political reality – Mr Putin will remain Russia’s real ruler for some time to come. And the ex-KGB men he promoted will stay close to the seat of power.

However, if Mr Medvedev plays his cards well he may succeed in accumulating authority, given signs that Mr Putin may eventually wish to retire and that power in Russia gravitates around the Kremlin.

While both men have put continuity high on the agenda, they have also cast the new presidency as an opportunity for a change of emphasis. The argument is not without foundation – Mr Medvedev is the first leader since 1917 to come from outside the Communist party.

A lawyer, he has pledged to promote the rule of law. That promise should be welcome to the many Russians who suffer daily from abuses of power, including corruption and judicial malpractice. Not the least among them is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the jailed oil baron, who was imprisoned on politically motivated fraud charges and now faces new allegations. Mr Medvedev must show that by upholding the rule of law he means to strengthen the rights of citizens and not simply to reinforce the rights of an over-mighty state, as Mr Putin has done.

Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev also seem to want to ease tensions with the west. Mr Putin has made efforts to settle disputes, including with the US over missile defence and with the European Union over Poland’s meat trade. The west should make the most of the opportunity – co-operation with Russia is important on issues including energy, global terrorism, the Middle East and Iran.

But western leaders should not be naive. What Russia does matters more than what Russia says. Even as it is making semi-friendly overtures to the west, it is protesting against Nato enlargement and raising pressure on Georgia, by increasing its troops in breakaway Abkhazia. The rhetoric in Moscow and Tbilisi is alarming. While both states claim they do not want war, the danger of blundering into one is growing.

The west must be firm – the sovereignty of the ex-Soviet Union states must be upheld, like the sovereignty of countries elsewhere. Mr Medvedev must show that, as a lawyer, he has as much respect for international as for domestic law".

"Seize the moment, talk to Medvedev", The Financial Times, 8 May 2008, Editorial in www.ft.com

"I expect the relations to shift slowly to where they used to be at 2001 to 2002, because they went too far downwards during the last six years. There’s a fundamental contradiction in Russian foreign policy toward the West generally, and the United States in particular. Strategically, the needs of Russia dictate a very close alliance with the West because we face the same fundamental security challenges of Islamic radicalism and a rising China. But at the same time there have been a lot of internal political impulses pushing the Kremlin to strained relations with the West.

First, there is the deep psychological setback of defeat in the Cold War and loss of superpower status suffered by the Russian political elite. Second, it’s been useful politically to portray the West as the enemy to justify outgoing President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime. There are also the financial interests of the ruling group because they not only rule Russia; they also in effect “own” Russia, being de facto owners of the main oil and gas companies. They are interested in very high oil prices, so there is a tendency in Russian foreign policy to keep tensions high in the Middle East, and that’s especially clear in the case of Iran’s nuclear problem.

So it is inevitable that Russian foreign policy is contradictory and has a cyclic character. It seems to me that now we have reached the end of the latest negative confrontational cycle and there are the first indications of an upward tendency. Both during the recent ministers’ meeting in Moscow and during the Sochi summit [April 2008 meeting between Putin and Bush], Moscow was rather conciliatory. Earlier, the Kremlin had threatened to target its nuclear missiles on European cities and so on. But in Moscow and during Sochi, Putin went out of his way to emphasize that he believed that Russian concerns were understood by the United States and Americans were sincerely trying to assuage our concerns. There is now a tendency to reduce a bit the anti-Western posturing in government policy and propaganda".

Andrei Piontkovsky [Director of the Strategic Studies Center in Moskva], in www.cfr.org

There has indeed been a changing of the guard in Moskva. Putin has in accordance with the constitution of the Russian Federation, become the first Russian leader in history to serve out his term and see a peaceful transfer of power. Moving over to the premiership, and the head of the ruling party, Putin will of course for quite some time to come, be the primus inter pares in the duumvirate with Medvedev. However history shows that such arrangements (Marc Anthony and Octavian come to mind as does Tsars Pyotr I and his half-brother Ivan VI) rarely last very long, especially in Russia. So, assuming that within a not very long amount of time that Medvedev will be the senior partner in this modern day dvoetsarstvovanie, what can we expect from him diplomatically? And, how will Russian diplomacy change, both in content and in form from the Putin regime? Well first off, Medvedev is an entirely different animal than any Russian leader since 1917, if not since the great pre-war premier, P.A. Stolypin. In essence both men were not chinovnikii or appartchikii, but members of civil society, what in Russia is termed the 'intelligentsia' (in the original, 19th century Russian meaning of the word). As Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has recently commented the mere fact that Medvedev is "the first Russian leader in my memory who doesn't come from the Communist Party or the security services" (see: "Medvedev Good for the West, says Poland," in www.ft.com), is a reason for welcoming him. Second, unlike Grazhdanin Putin, Medvedev does not appear to harbour any deep suspicions of the West, nor is he prone to have any nostalgia for the now defunct Sovietskaya Vlast. Something that Putin and many members of his entourage still suffer from. In short, with Medvedev the outside world is now dealing with the future not the past of Russian foreign policy.

What however it may well be asked is the 'future of Russian foreign policy'? I would argue that it will consist of a the following points, points strongly held and not liable to be easily given up or away: upholding, in a non-belligerent, if at times perhaps annoying fashion, Russian prestige and Russian's position in the world. The days when Russia could simply be presented with faite accompli's, by the Americans as was the case in the Yeltsin regime is long past. Similarly, you can count on Russia upholding the power and the prestige of institutions like the United Nations, which it is a member. The same can be said for the Middle East Quartet, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Council of Europe. Similarly do not expect Moskva to be inclined to smile warmly upon any unilateral American proposals `a la the Iraq War in the future. Russia's opposition in 2003, was of course opportunistic, but, it also derived from a calculated stance that to give legitimacy to any American, unilateral power plays could very well be a harbinger of a similar type of maneuver against Russia itself. In short, expect to see a continuation of Putin's multi-lateral, anti-hegemonic diplomatic card, vis-`a-vis the Americans. Other points that one can foresee Medvedev pursuing are: attempting to reinsert itself diplomatically, using the oil and gas card, into the Balkans. Similarly, Medvedev's Russia will try to maintain as much influence as possible in both Ukraine, and, in Belarus. With it not impossible to foresee the time when, in the case of the latter country, when the Lukashenko regime implodes that Moskva may finally chose to reunite with the now isolated country rather than allowing it to 'fall' into the 'Western Camp'. Vis-`a-vis the European Union, it is likely the relations will veer from cordial and correct, to warm and friendly. Depending upon both the issues and which particular group of countries that one is talking of. With the warmest relations being with Germany, France and Italia. Relations being colder with Poland, the Baltic Countries and the UK as well. It would not be unlikely that Medvedev will follow Putin's practice of attempting, to play the jeu of divida et impera with the EU as a whole. Towards the Americans, Russia's relations will again veer: from difficult if not a bit frosty, to at times perhaps lukewarm and correct. Do not expect much in the way of any real closeness or improvements to the Russian-American relationship anytime soon. There is simply not enough similarity of interests, either diplomatic or economic for the Americans to be willing to treat Moskva in a more equal or at the very least a more quid pro quo fashion. The usual American habit of asking Russia for concessions, gratis, is all too likely to set to continue. And, it does not matter in the least if the President is a Republican or a Democrat. A liberal or a Conservative. The underlying mentality, of the makers of American foreign policy is the same towards Moskva: demand the world, and, pay nothing for it. Parque ils travailler pour le Roi de Prusse!

To sum up: the watchword as the Putin Regime gives way to the Medvedev Regime is: continuity of purpose and the underlying focus of Russian foreign policy, with discontinuity as per the manner in which policy is presented to the outside world. I do not anticipate any of the diplomatic maladroit antics that Putin has cared to indulge in the past few years. The infamous speech at the Security Conference at Munich, a few years back being the ne plus ultra. I expect that Medvedev will allow his capable Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov to manage more of Russian foreign policy and to present a more friendly and negotiable visage to the world. In short, I agree with those who argue that the coming of the new Russian President is a cause, if not necessarily for joy than certainly for quiet appreciation that there are new possibilities available, both in Russia domestically and for Russia abroad.

MILITARY INNOCENT ABROAD: GENERAL SANCHEZ IN IRAQ

"WAR IS TOO SERIOUS A MATTER TO ENTRUST TO MILITARY MEN". George Clemenceau.

"THE SWORD IS THE AXIS OF THE WORLD AND ITS POWER IS ABSOLUTE" . Charles de Gaulle.

"WE FAILED AS AN ARMY TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION IN IMMEDIATE, POST-WAR [CIRCA MAY 2003] IRAQ". General Ricardo Sanchez.

Tonight, General Ricardo Sanchez, C-in-C of coalition forces in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, spoke to the members of the Oxonian Society in the ornate and august ballroom of the 3 West Club in mid-town Manhattan. The now retired General is peddling his recently published book, "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" to the public. Treated to a warm and respectful applause both before and after his talk, General Sanchez, speaking with his native South Texas drawl, offered up a curious defence of his conduct as Allied Commander in chief in Iraq during the initial period of the insurgency, after the defeat of Saddam Hussein's conventional forces in March-April of 2003. Rather than pleading 'mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa', Sanchez in the time honored fashion of the American military hierarchy during the Vietnam War, choose to blame official Washington for the Iraq debacle. Among the more interesting if not very informative or original comments of Sanchez on his time in Baghdad were: American forces were, 'not trained for urban warfare', which they soon had to face; that there was both at his (Corp commander) level and higher in the military hierarchy, no real planning for the post-conventional phase of military operations in Iraq. As per Sanchez, in comments which have been endorsed elsewhere, by the time that he took over the command in Baghdad, all planning in Washington at the time was for withdrawing forces and just leaving a skelton force. However, Sanchez did not offer up any defence of his own (mis)-conduct in the summer of 2003 in not seriously revamping occupation forces so that they could tackle successfully the growing insurgency on the ground from the Sunni insurgents. Nor did he offer any but the weakest defence, in essence again blaming the Rumsfeld Department of Defence and the CIA, for the abuses that lead to the Abu Ghraib Scandal. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the subsequent research has shown that General Sanchez appears to have been singularly incompetent in not exercising the proper supervision of the military prison system in Iraq. In his other remarks, Sanchez blames the then American proconsul in Baghdad, Ambassador Jerry Bremer for the political mistakes (such as de-ba'athization), which helped to make the Iraqi insurgency ever more popular & powerful. He also blames official Washington for the start and stop military offensive in Fallejua in the early Spring of 2004. The General finished his remarks by arguing that Iraq and the Iraq War, was a 'vital national interest', both for 'moral and legal' reasons.

What is one to make of the above performance? One is tempted to recall Clemenceau's comments at the top of this posting, and add to them that soldier's, especially American soldiers should be prevented from thinking too hard...Certainly General Sanchez both at the time and listening to him tonight, appears to have been singularly over his head and out of his depth as C-in-C of American forces in Iraq. No doubt this was partly due to the fact that unlike say the British Army, with such recent commanders as Field-Marshal Lord Carver (Winchester), Sir Mike Jackson (Stamford), Sir Rupert Smith (Haileybury) and Sir Richard Dannatt (Felsted), all from the Upper or Upper-middle classes, the American officer corp is rife with individuals for whom the military is merely a ladder of social advancement and mobility. Consequently, the current C-in-C, General Petraeus notwithstanding, the level of intellectual and tactical sophistication and leadership, to be found in much of the American military hierarchy leaves a great deal to be desired. It is not surprising therefore that Sanchez himself did not go to West Point, nor did he graduate from the Army War College or the General Staff College. No doubt General Sanchez is on a personal level a most humble and agreeable chap. Probably the type of fellow that many of his fellow Americans would like to have a glass of beer with. Unfortunately, it is precisely this, 'hail fellow well met' category of military leadership which was singularly inappropriate in the crucial time that Sanchez was in command in Iraq. A time which in retrospect will never come again in terms of offering up the possibility of preventing the subsequent debacle that has become Iraq for the United States. Among others who we have to thank for this state of affairs is General Sanchez.

GOOD NEWS ON THE GOLAN FRONT? SYRIAN-ISRAELI PEACE FEELERS AND WHAT THEY MEAN

"Israel has reportedly offered to withdraw from the Golan Heights, the territory conquered by its forces in the 1967 war, in return for full peace with Syria.

The offer was disclosed yesterday by Buthaina -Shaaban, a Syrian cabinet minister, who said the deal was floated by Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, in talks with the Turkish -government. She told al-Jazeera, the Arabic news channel: "Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of international conditions, on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights in full to Syria."

Crucially, the Syrian claims were not denied by the Israeli government. Mr Olmert's spokesman dec-lined to comment directly but said: "The Israeli government's position was always clear and has been reiterated on many occasions. Israel seeks peace with Syria. Israel is interested in peace with Syria. The Syrians understand what Israeli expectations are, and Israel understands what the Syrian expectations are."

Israel has long demanded that Syria cut its ties with two of the Jewish state's most committed and potent enemies: Hizbollah, the -Lebanese Shia group, and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group. The country's armed forces fought a war against Hizbollah as recently as 2006 and it continues to trade almost daily attacks with Hamas, which took control of the Gaza Strip last year.

Israel believes that Damascus not only provides political cover for the two groups - Hamas's leader is based in the Syrian capital - but also supplies arms and gives training to the fighters of Hamas and Hizbollah.

But, with the likelihood of a peace agreement with the Palestinians this year receding, Mr Olmert might find it useful to test the waters of a Syrian deal.

There have been reports in recent weeks of secret talks, although Syria has always said negotiations must be public. Damascus insists that Israel should agree to a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights as a condition for negotiations.

US-brokered talks between the sides on the return of the Heights broke down in 2000. The US has not encouraged a renewal of talks, seeking instead to isolate Syria".
"Israel hints at Golan deal for Syrian Peace", The Financial Times, 24 April 2008, in www.ft.com

The report in today's FT, could also been seen in much of the quality international press, including AFP, Haaretz, the New York Times, Bloomberg, the BBC, as well as the Beirut Daily Star. What exactly does it mean? Especially since such a short time earlier, we were all treated to stories about the possibility of an outbreak of a new war between Syria and Israel. Well first of all, we can now, all of us, throw safely into the rubbish bin, precisely those stories (I of course threw them into the rubbish bin, quite awhile ago...). Second, the reports are I would venture 'real', in the sense that Israeli PM Olmert is in fact considering the possibility of seriously pursuing peace negotiations with Damascus. Of course, this option has been mulled over by various, admittedly marginal elements in the Israeli establishment, since the debacle of the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. Until now, the quite evident, de facto 'verbotem', on any such talks by the Bush Regime, made any realistic possibility of such talks commencing, much less going somewhere a nullity. Now however, either because of the difficulties that Tel Aviv is experiencing on other fronts, such as the Gaza Strip, as well as the deadlock over negotiations with PA President Abbas, or, because time is running out for the American Administration, Olmert, et. al., appear to be more inclined to allow for public discussion of the idea of a peace transaction with Syria. Something which was, even six months ago, quite impossible due to Washington's obtuseness. However, while this public 'pour parler' is of course an improvement on the prior situation, will it in fact result in anything of a concrete nature occurring in the near future? Unfortunately, that is highly unlikely. It is quite impossible that Olmert will be willing to completely break ranks with the Americans and open up discussion with the Assad Regime seul. And, as the American academic and Syrian expert, Joshua Landis, notes in quoting an unnamed expert, any peace deal between the two parties would require American support, both diplomatic, and, more importantly from the Israeli perspective financial. Perhaps up to twenty billion dollars (see: www.syriacomment.com). Of course, some American ideologues of the 'neo-conservative' variety will argue against any such agreement, for two reasons: one) the terms that Damascus is offering are illusory; two) that the Assad Regime is 'illegitimate', and, should not be offered support, even indirectly by the Israelis or the Americans. The logic of either objection to my mind is rather nonsensical: a) we will never know how illusory is Damascus's terms are, except if we engage the same in real pour parlers, and, then find out! b) the regime of Assad Fils, is no more and certainly no less, 'legitimate', 'Democratic',than say the neighboring regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, most of the Gulf States, much less Iraq...Except of course that women can drive and vote in Syria, and Christians can freely and safely go to church and wear crosses, which is not something that can be said about say, Saudi Arabia....This is not of course to make Assad Fils, into a icon of freedom and Democracy. It is evidently the case that he is neither of these things. However, the point is quite simple and to my mind self-evident (not unfortunately so in official Washington): diplomatically speaking there is not much in the way of low hanging fruit in the Near East at the moment. Syria is the only possible exception to this. To not at the very least, attempt to in effect 'turn' Syria, from its alliances with Persia, Hezbollah and Hamas, in return for the Golan Heights, is the very mid-summer of madness. Unfortunately it would appear to be the case that is what will in fact happen once again. Due mostly to American closemindedness and stupidity.

EX-PRESIDENT CARTER, ISRAEL AND DEALING WITH HAMAS

"Jimmy Carter, the former US president attempting to broker an understanding between Israel and Hamas, said on Monday the Islamist Palestinian group stood ready to accept the Jewish state as a “neighbour” and would back a peace deal under certain conditions.

Mr Carter said: “I met with Hamas leaders from the West Bank, Gaza and Damascus. They said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians – a departure from long-standing Hamas doctrine that refused to recognise two states.”

In a statement released shortly after his speech in Jerusalem, Hamas neither confirmed nor denied his claims. However, it did adopt a broadly conciliatory tone, expressing support for a referendum on a peace agreement and promising “flexibility” and the willingness to take “the necessary steps”.

Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and has claimed responsibility for a string of recent attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, did not say what those steps were.

Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader, said in Damascus that it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war but would not recognise the Jewish state. He raised the prospect of a “a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition” should Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders.

Mr Carter has been criticised by Israeli and US politicians for meeting senior Hamas officials, including Mr Meshal, who lives in exile in Damascus. While the former president has stressed he is not engaged in an official diplomatic effort, he has urged Israel and the US to end their boycott of Hamas.

“He [Mr Carter] made this trip on his own initiative,” said Tom Casey, a US State Department spokesman. “We counselled him against engaging with Hamas, in keeping with long-standing US policy. They still refuse to acknowledge or recognise any of the basic Quartet principles . . . The bottom line is Hamas still believes in the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Mr Carter said he knew the meetings would be “viewed negatively in some quarters”, but insisted it was a mistake to isolate Hamas and Syria. “We believe the problem is not that we met them but that the US and Israeli governments will not meet. This unwillingness to talk makes peace harder to achieve,” he said.

The winner of the Nobel peace prize then cited a passage agreed with Hamas: “If [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas succeeds in negotiating a final status agreement with Israel, Hamas will accept the decision made by the Palestinian people and their will through a referendum . . . even if Hamas is opposed to the agreement'".

"Hamas would accept Israel, says Carter", 21 April 2008, in www.ft.com

"The extreme reactions prompted by former US President Jimmy Carter's attempt to engage Hamas can be difficult to reconcile with objective reality, especially if one wants to avoid extending parallels to their seemingly obvious but necessarily ersatz conclusions. What players on both sides of the divide have in common, though, is a mindset that, to say the least, does not lend itself to rational discussion.

One on side there are voices like that of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who, unable to credibly pretend that Hamas does not exist, rejects any form of negotiations with the group until it renounces most of the bargaining chips it holds. The one it has not been asked to forego, its mandate as the freely and fairly elected majority party in the Palestinian legislature, was devalued by US sanctions the moment it was acquired and then rendered null and void by infighting with the US-backed Fatah faction that led to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya's being deposed by President Mahmoud Abbas. As for the argument that Hamas is a "terrorist" organization, it is important to recall, too, that the original icon of Palestinian resistance to occupation, Yasser Arafat, was long dismissed in identical terms....

None of this is to equate the State Department with Al-Qaeda or either with other entities pursuing separate agendas that are just as disruptive. All of it, however, illustrates how vulnerable this part of the world is to black-and-white positions that allow no room for practical considerations. Political Islam, for instance, is not going away, so those uncomfortable with the phenomenon have a vested interest in helping relatively pragmatic groups like Hamas - and Lebanon's own Hizbullah, for that matter - to feel more at home in the democratic tent. This will not be accomplished by conspiring to disqualify their very pertinent - and significantly representative - policy positions on capricious and/or specious grounds that only discredit the very concept of what is trying to sell itself as participatory democracy".

"Some Mindsets are more conducive to useful discussions than others", Daily Star,
22 April 2008, in www.dailystar.com.lb

It would be kinderspielen, to merely get up on a soapbox and criticize former American President Carter, for being some type of 'moral idiot'. Although to be honest, that is what he does come across on my occasions. And, most especially in the current case of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The fact is that left to its own devices, Hamas would be quite content to rain bombs and kill innocents on the Israeli side of the border in pursuit of its 'ultimate' goal of regaining all of 'historical' Palestine. And, just as obvious is the fact that Hamas is not in the least position to do any such thing. What it is capable of doing is: a) launching rockets on those portions of Israel which lie adjacent to the Gaza Strip, doing damage to Israeli property and very very occasionally killing some poor innocent; b)killing and or capturing, when possible, Israeli troops guarding the border, or attempting some mission inside Gaza proper. Perhaps up to ten Israeli troops have been killed in this fashion in the past six months, and, of course one Israeli soldier remains a prisoner of Hamas since June of 2006; c) and, by virtue of 'a' and 'b' above, trying to make it all but impossible for Palestinian President Abbas, to negotiate some type of modus vivendi agreement with Israel, which might, just might, against all of the many odds (much of which are Israeli or American in nature), result in a serious push for a peace agreement. Both in terms of Palestinian opinion in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the wider Near Eastern and Arab popular opinion.

With all of the above being said and understood, it also has to be equally realised that the pre-existing American and Israel policy to: i) ignore Hamas as it did not exist; ii) attempt to actively undermine and in effect overthrow Hamas by a policy of economic sanctions and strangulation, id est., allowing almost no food supplies and other trade from other the Israeli or Egyptian sides of the border so that the population of the Gaza Strip will naturally blame Hamas and consequently, thus effect its overthrow from within. This was and is (nominally) still is American policy even prior to the coup d'etat that brought Hamas to power in the Gaza Strip. The fact that the chosen weapons for the success of this policy: economic sanctions, and, before that, Fatah loyalists in the Gaza Strip, did not work or co-operate has not made much of an impact on official Washington's view of things. In the case of Israel, there appears to be a two opposing states of mind as to how to deal with Hamas: one) overthrow it via economic sanctions, and, if that fails, to use overwhelming military force to retaliate for Hamas pinprick attacks; two) negotiate some type of modus vivendi with it, at least to prevent matters from getting out of hand. Especially, since no Israeli leader of any strip, regards going back into the Gaza Strip as an occupation force as anything other than a pure nightmare. However much it might at first resolve the matter of the rockets being launched on Israeli towns and villages bordering Hamas.

Into this impass, comes Mr. Carter. He goes to the area and secures a statement from the Hamas leadership in exile, that they are flexible and willing to negotiate with the Jewish State, as well as to abide by any Palestinian referendum on a final status peace deal. The issue is not whether Hamas is likely or agreeable characters. They are all disgusting characters, and, in a more sensible world, would merit like all Islamic fanatics, many many years as galley slaves under the lash. However we do not inhabit an 'sensible world'. Consequently, we must endeavor to negotiate plausible agreements with such individuals. Who at least nominally are no more blood thirsty than say the IRA. An organization that the American government was quite willing to treat with kid gloves for over twenty-five years when it suited it to do so. Again, in an ideal world, Israel would simply march into Gaza, destroy its existing infastructure and quickly withdraw. However as the Israeli government knows quite well, and, hence the reason for its relative inaction over the last two years, the situation in Gaza does not allow for it to perform such a quick and clean operation.
Would that it could. However it cannot. Consequently, Mr. Carter, that 'moral idiot', is correct in stating that:

"'We believe the problem is not that we met them but that the US and Israeli governments will not meet. This unwillingness to talk makes peace harder to achieve'".

Just so. And, the sooner that both Tel Aviv and Washington as well as the EU get this point down the better for all concerned. Because, amici, like it or not, Hamas is not going to be disappearing anytime soon.

THE PLACE OF TIBET IN CHINESE GRAND STRATEGY

"We see Beijing struggling to maintain control over China. Its vast security apparatus and interlocking economic system are intended to achieve that. We see Beijing building coastal defenses in the Pacific, including missiles that can reach deep into the Pacific, in the long run trying to force the U.S. Navy on the defensive. And we see Beijing working to retain control over two key regions: Xinjiang and Tibet....

Now look at Tibet on the population density and terrain maps. On the terrain map one sees the high mountain passes of the Himalayas. Running from the Hindu Kush on the border with Pakistan to the Myanmar border, small groups can traverse this terrain, but no major army is going to thrust across this border in either direction. Supplying a major force through these mountains is impossible. From a military point of view, it is a solid wall.

Note that running along the frontier directly south of this border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world. If China were to withdraw from Tibet, and there were no military hindrance to population movement, Beijing fears this population could migrate into Tibet. If there were such a migration, Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power. If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut Sichuan and Yunnan — the Chinese heartland.

The Chinese have a fundamental national interest in retaining Tibet, because Tibet is the Chinese anchor in the Himalayas. If that were open, or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down. The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out. They will hold both of these provinces, particularly Tibet.

The Chinese note that the Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China invaded Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They see the latest unrest in Tibet as instigated by the Indian government, which uses the Dalai Lama to try to destabilize the Chinese hold on Tibet and open the door to Indian expansion. To put it differently, their view is that the Indians could shut the Dalai Lama down if they wanted to, and that they don’t signals Indian complicity.

It should be added that the Chinese see the American hand behind this as well. Apart from public statements of support, the Americans and Indians have formed a strategic partnership since 2001. The Chinese view the United States — which is primarily focused on the Islamic world — as encouraging India and the Dalai Lama to probe the Chinese, partly to embarrass them over the Olympics and partly to increase the stress on the central government. The central government is stretched in maintaining Chinese security as the Olympics approach. The Chinese are distracted. Beijing also notes the similarities between what is happening in Tibet and the “color” revolutions the United States supported and helped stimulate in the former Soviet Union.

It is critical to understand that whatever the issues might be to the West, the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security, and they view pro-Tibetan agitation in the West as an attempt to strike at the heart of Chinese national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons, and therefore their public relations strategy is collapsing. Neither India nor the United States is particularly upset that the Europeans are thinking about canceling attendance at various ceremonies".
"Chinese Geopolitics and the Significance of Tibet", by Dr. George Friedman, 15 April 2008, in www.stratfor.com.

The riots and violence in Tibet over the past two months, have again reminded the world of the ongoing PRC grande projet of turning the 'province' and the neighboring 'province' of Xianjiang into bastions of Han Chinese hegemony. A projet which has roots going way back into the Manchu Dynasty in the early 18th century. With the collapse of the Manchu Dynasty at the beginning of the 20th century (1911), both of these enormous territories were lost to the power holders in Peking. In a classical example of the Rankean idea of 'Der Primat der Aussenpolitk', the fact is that all Han Chinese authorities since, whether neo-Monarchist (Yuan Shikai), Republican (Chiang Kai-shek) or Communist (Mao to the present leadership), were and are adamantly determined to either regain or keep their hold on Tibet, come what may. As Dr. Friedman correctly notes, regardless of any protests by the West, or conversely any public relations embarrassments to the PRC's 'coming out' party, at this summer's Olympics, Peking's main goal is to retain its grip on both provinces.

Given the above circumstances what is the best line for the West, and in particular the USA to take? I submit that the only intelligent line is one of 'ethical realism' (all due acknowledgement to Anatol Lieven of course for coining this phrase). Of course in the absence of the self-destruction of Communist rule, both territories will remain part of the PRC. Of that there is no question. However, just as the West, kept ties to the dissident movements in the 'People's Democracy's' of Central and Eastern Europe, so too must the West make sure to retain contact with, and, even if need be sub rosa support for those groups currently in and outside of Tibet who are struggling, albeit peacefully against Han Chinese oppression. The 'pay-off', for such support may be years, indeed many, many years in the offing. Perhaps the 'pay-off' will never come at all. I for my own part, will agree that the PRC is very much an economic dynamo, and, on the surface at any rate highly unlikely to collapse anytime or significantly reform itself anytime soon. However notwithstanding this fact, it is very much the case that the PRC, is full of contradictions, both economic and political. And, just as in the case of Sovietskaya Vlast, such contradictions can indeed bring about the downfall of the entire regime (or should we say, allowed the existing elites to prepare the way for the same and profit from doing so), so similarly in the case of the PRC, it is not impossible to imagine that the regime in Peking, will under the force of circumstances, and pressures brought about my its own programme of 'modernization from above', will eventually encompass its own ruin. Which one can only say again and again: pire ca va, mieux c'est.