Sarkozy Deserts Bush, Europe Drifting From America

By Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S

When Nicolas Sarkozy was elected President of France, it appeared that for the first time a French President was going to play a second fiddle to President Bush. He gave the impression that he was also a staunch rightist who was bent upon reversing the liberal and leftist traditions of France and tows the neo conservative and reactionary policies of President Bush. However, the recent developments in Europe and the Middle East show that Sarkozy has parted company with Bush.

Sarkozy played a very different role in the Russia – Georgia conflict as opposed to the Bush administration that has taken a strong anti Russian stand. Sarkozy has taken a neutral stand in the conflict and has strongly opposed the American policy of provoking confrontation with Russia. Sarkozy does not want to antagonize Russia and wants to continue cooperation with Russia. As the chair of the 27 nation European Union, Sarkozy effectively resisted the American pressure to impose sanctions on Russia. He was able to get a compromise from Russia and Georgia regarding the withdrawal of the Russian troops from Georgia. Russia will withdraw its troops from Georgia except Ossetia and Abkhezia and in return, Georgia will not try to retake Ossetia or Abkhezia .

Sarkozy’s mission was very different than the American vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to Georgia and Ukraine that looked like a deliberate move to provoke Russia. The Russians have already blamed him for provoking the conflict in order to have McCain win the Presidential election. Sarkozy tried really hard to calm the tensions on both sides. Sarkozy does not want Europe to become an arena for the third world war. Europe has suffered enough in the two world wars and is very reluctant to again become a battle ground.

Sarkozy’s recent trip to Syria again showed that the French policy in the Middle East is fundamentally different from the American policy. America is heavily tilted towards Israel and is perceived as anti Arab and anti Muslim by the Arabs and the Islamic countries. He was the first head of a western state to visit Syria after the murder of the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. The west blamed Syria for the murder. In Syria, Sarkozy reasserted the French neutrality in the Arab-Israel conflict. Israel has become so used to the American one sidedness that it views the Europeans neutrality as a tilt towards the Arabs.

What made Sarkozy change his policies? Europe is fundamentally different than the United States. America remains the only country in the world that is loyal to the pure and unadulterated consumerist capitalism. Europe has long back deserted the traditional capitalism and has adopted the concept of a social welfare state based upon what can be called utilitarian capitalism. This form of capitalism can also be called “Capitalism with a human face”.

The poor performance of the American consumerist capitalism as compared to the European utilitarian capitalism has convinced Europe that it is on the right track. Failure of the American policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran as well as the deepening economic crisis at home has convinced the Europeans that time has come to put a distance between America and Europe. The resurgence of Russia as a global power and the relative decline of the American power has also led the Europeans to review their relations with Russia and America and adopt a more balanced and independent stand in the conflict between the two countries.

England seems to be sticking to its subservient role to America. Some people called Tony Blair “Bush’s Peon”. It seems that Gordon Brown wants the same job. England has very little influence in Europe compared to the combined influence of France and Germany. America is looking to India as a replacement for the declining influence in Europe. So far, India seems eager to fill the vacuum. India can empathize with America because if America is losing global influence, India is facing the same in Asia, Third world and in the nonaligned movement.

Dr. Sawraj Singh is Chairman of Washington State Network For Human Rights, and Chairman of Central Washington Coalition For Social Justice.

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=090908045536

Bush ordered cross-border raids in Pakistan

US President George W Bush has secretly given go ahead to American special forces to carry out ground attacks inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the country’s government.

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the taliban and Al Qaeda elements, New York Times reported on Thursday quoting senior American officials.

The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable, a senior official told the paper. “We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

The new orders the paper said reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the taliban inside Pakistan as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants.

They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details the official said.

American officials were quoting as saying that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the special operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission. The newspaper reported that US officials have been debating for months whether to authorise such attacks against Al-Qaeda and taliban following US intelligence warning that these militants were consolidating in North-western Pakistan.

The reports comes after US led coalition forces have launched cross-border raid inside Pakistan which left 15 people dead including some top Al-Qaeda functionaries. Besides, the central intelligence agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted predator aircraft, the paper noted.

But the new orders for the military’s special operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

A top Pakistani army general has said that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty at all costs.

It is unclear, the report said precisely what legal authority the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country.

A second senior American official told the Times that, the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by special operations forces against significant militant targets.

The official did not say which members of the Pakistani government gave their approval, the paper said. Any new ground operations in Pakistan, the report said raise the prospect of American forces being killed or captured in the restive tribal areas and a propaganda coup for Al-Qaeda.

Last week’s raid also presents a major test for Pakistan’s new president Asif Ali Zardari, who supports more aggressive action by his army against the militants but cannot risk being viewed as an American lap dog as was his predecessor Pervez Musharraf, the paper said.

The new orders, the Times added, were issued after months of debate inside the Bush administration about whether to authorise a ground campaign inside Pakistan. The debate first reported by the New York Times in late June.

The paper said that details about last week’s commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive than had previously been known.

It quoted two American officials briefed on the raid as saying, it involved more than two dozen members of the navy seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected qaeda fighters in what now appeared to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.

Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the special operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission.

Pakistan’s government has asserted that last week’s raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.

Unilateral action by the American forces does not help the war against terror because it only enrages public opinion, said Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington during a speech on Friday. In this particular incident, nothing was gained by the action of the troops.

The stepped-up campaign inside Pakistan, the Times says comes at a time when American-Pakistani relations have been fraying. There is resentment within American intelligence agencies about ties between ISI and militants in the tribal areas.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””

Pakistan kills militants; tension with U.S. grows

Pakistani security forces have killed 20 militants in fighting in a northwestern region on the Afghan border, a security official said on Thursday, as sharp differences on terrorism surfaced with the United States.

An intensifying insurgency in Afghanistan has brought more pressure on Pakistan to go after militants operating out of sanctuaries in remote enclaves on its side of the border. It has also led to a sharp increase in U.S. strikes on militants in Pakistan.

The new government in Islamabad says it is committed to the campaign against militancy, launched after the September 11 attacks seven years ago, but bans incursions by U.S. troops.

In the latest fighting in the Bajaur region, Pakistani security forces backed by helicopter gunships killed 20 militants in an attack on a militant stronghold in the village of Rashkai that began on Wednesday, security officials said.

“We’ve almost taken control of the area. Our troops are advancing and the operation is likely to be finished today,” said an official who declined to be identified.

A military official said four soldiers were also killed and some Arabs were among the dead militants.

Militants in Bajaur, where some analysts believed top al Qaeda leaders have been hiding, frequently cross into Afghanistan to attack Western troops and government forces there.

Violence in Afghanistan has soared over the past two years as al Qaeda and Taliban fighters have regrouped and the U.S. military said on Wednesday it was not winning there and would revise its strategy to combat militant havens in Pakistan. Cont
Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kayani said on Wednesday Pakistan would not allow foreign troops onto its soil.

Helicopter-borne U.S. commandos carried out a ground assault in Pakistan’s South Waziristan, a sanctuary for al Qaeda operatives, last week, the first known incursion into Pakistan by U.S. troops since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, killing 20 people, including women and children.

Pakistan condemned the U.S. raid and summoned the U.S. ambassador to lodge a protest

http://www.reuters.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

Disaster in Afghanistan

”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

John W. Warnock

It is difficult to find out what is really going on in Afghanistan. The focus of the mass media is almost entirely on the military activities of the Canadian and NATO forces. There is absolutely no coverage of political developments. The news on the economy is limited to the state of the poppy industry. This is no accident. The North American media, including the CBC, has strongly supported the U.S./NATO strategy and the administration of President Hamid Karzai. Contrary to the mainstream message, things are not going well.

Rise in civilian casualties

Over the past few weeks NATO forces have killed civilians in a number of incidents, and popular opposition to the western military effort is increasing. On August 22 the United States bombed the village of Azizabad in Herat province; the result was the death of 91 civilians, including over 60 children. Rockets and missiles were also used. Many homes were destroyed. Local citizens stoned the Afghan army when they tried to distribute supplies. NATO forces in Paktika province launched an artillery attack on a village on September 1 as part of a general sweep-and-destroy mission against Taliban forces. Three children were killed and seven injured. That same day U.S. and Afghan forces carried out an overnight raid in Hud Kheil, east of Kabul. A family of four, including two children, were killed when hand grenades were thrown into their house. In Kabul hundreds blocked the main road out of town protesting the military practices of the international forces.

Afghan government and NATO attacks In response to the steady increase of civilian deaths this year, the Afghan parliament passed a resolution in August calling on the Karzai administration to negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement with NATO and United States, making it consistent with Afghan and international law. President Karzai’s cabinet demanded “an end to air attacks in civilian areas, illegal detentions and unilateral house searches.” There is growing opposition to the presence of the occupying forces. The Senlis Council reported in June 2008 that in their most recent recent public opinion survey “more than six out of ten of those interviewed … said that foreign troops should leave.” This is the position taken by many of the democratic parties in Afghanistan. Malalai Joya, the outspoken critic of the Karzai government, has called for all foreign troops to leave the country. She argues that Afghans can settle this dispute better on their own.

The approaching famine

However, the most important current issue in Afghanistan is the drought, the crop failure, and the prospect of famine. This story has received no coverage in the North American media. Over the last winter Afghanistan received well-below normal rainfall and mountain snow pack. The spring runoff was light, and crop yields from irrigated agriculture have been significantly reduced. There are conditions of drought throughout the country. In many areas there are no crops and livestock has perished from lack of pasture. Wheat provides the staple food, and production is 60 percent below average. Recent rains have brought flooding, as the land has been hardened by the drought. Floods are more common because over the past few decades 60% of the woodland has been removed by the population seeking fuel for cooking and winter heating. The jump in fuel prices has raised the cost of the delivery of food from neighbouring countries. Food prices are rising. The price of a 50 kg bag of wheat flour is now $35. One half of the population in Afghanistan lives on less than $2 per day. The government of Afghanistan reports that 42% of the population lives in “extreme poverty”, defined as a per capita income of less than $120 per year. The United Nations Mission in Afghanistan reported in August that “at least four million most vulnerable people have already been pushed into the ‘high-risk food-insecurity ‘ category.” Children are the most vulnerable. One in five children die before the age of five, mainly due to malnutrition. In response, the United Nations and other food agencies have called for an emergency fund of $404 million in order to purchase food. To date less than 20% has been forthcoming from donor countries.

What is happening to women’s rights?

Supporters of the U.S. project in Afghanistan always point to how many girls are now going to school. But as Ann Jones points out, the number cited (5 million) is fewer than half the children of school age. In Kabul 85% are in school; in the Pashtun south, less than 20% and “near zero for girls.” Radio Free Afghanistan’s Jan Alekozai recently toured eastern Afghanistan. He noted that there were schools but no teachers, no chairs and tables, no electricity or water, no books, and no labs. “The participation of women is zero in the provinces,” he argued. While some are going to school “they cannot walk, for example, in a park – or with their families.” In February 2008 Womankind Worldwide (UK) released a survey of the status of women in Afghanistan. They found that 87% of Afghan women report domestic violence, 60% of all marriages are still forced, and 57% of all recent marriages involved girls under the age of sixteen, which is contrary to the law. Ann Jones, who spent a number of years in Afghanistan working for women’s rights, is not surprised. President Karzai’ wife is a qualified gynecologist but does not practice her skills. She remains locked up in the presidential fortress, the Arg, and is not seen by the general public. Since the onset of the 20th century, she is the first wife of a state leader who has not publicly championed women’s rights.

Change of regime in Afghanistan

Few Canadians would know that there is a presidential election scheduled for Afghanistan in 2009. Hamid Karzai has announced that he will run again. After his tour of eastern Afghanistan, Jan Alekozai reported strong opposition to the local warlords and the Karzai government. He judged that Karzai would have a hard time getting 20% of the votes in the 2009 election. The people blame the Americans and NATO for the increase in the power of the warlords. The main opposition to Karzai will come from the United National Front, which is largely a coalition of the warlords and Islamist leaders based in the parliament. They have demanded a change in the constitution to bring in a parliamentary system of government with political parties and elections by proportional representation. The Front is dominated by the Islamist forces from the Northern Alliance. The Front has called for a new international meeting to settle the ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. This would be hosted by the United Nations and include all neighbouring states as well as representation from Afghanistan’s political groups, including the armed opposition. In late August Fazel Sangcharaki, speaking for the Front, stated that many foreign envoys have supported this proposal. But the problem is the opposition of the U.S. government.

Canadian government stresses militarism

The policy of the Canadian government since 2001 has been to put the highest priority on its military role in Afghanistan. In support of the Afghan “war on terrorism”, the Canadian government has been spending around $1 billion per year on the military and only $100 million on humanitarian assistance and economic development. Much of the military budget has been spent on acquiring new military hardware, needed for counter-insurgency warfare.. Just before Stephen Harper forced a fall election, polls emerged which showed that Canadians remain skeptical of the role in Afghanistan. A poll by Ipsos Reid for the Department of National Defence revealed that the majority of Canadians still want Canada to emphasize peacekeeping. A CBC poll done by Environics reported that 56% of Canadians disapprove of Canada’s military role in Afghanistan. Since the March 2008 agreement by the Conservatives and Liberals to extend Canada’s mission to 2011, Afghanistan has largely disappeared from political discussion. The challenge for Canadians is to make this disastrous war in Afghanistan an issue in the current election.

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and author of Creating a Failed State: the US and Canada in Afghanistan. (Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, May 2008).