Saturday, May 26, 2007

Hiatus

The blog of musicalsandconspiracy.com is going on hiatus to work on a 9/11-related paper. Oh, there may be an occasional song, but hopefully it will mostly be the paper. So good luck to the surge and reconciliation, if that's what Iraq wants. Don't forget semi-autonomous federalism and mixed region, if anyone feels the need. And always be on the lookout for conspiracies.

posted: saturday, may 26, 2007, 11:45 AM ET
update: saturday, june 16, 2007, 3:51 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Sunni says US is problem; against faction meet / Anti-Shiite conspiracy, Shiite hotelier says

" 'The problem in Iraq is the American Army,' . . . [Muhammad al-Daini, a Sunni Arab member of the Iraqi Parliament] told a group of attentive American legislators. . . 'What brought terrorism, what brought Al Qaeda and what brought Iranian influence is the Americans.'
Mr. Daini, soft-spoken and generally unsmiling, has been ushered from meeting to meeting by a public relations firm paid by an American businessman who calls the Iraqi politician 'a true humanitarian.' The businessman, Dal LaMagna, says he is devoting the fortune he made selling his high-end grooming tools business, Tweezerman, to seeking an end to the violence in Iraq.
. . . The American lawmakers were polite and inquisitive but some appeared nonplussed by hints of the polarization of Iraqi views. When Representative Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, suggested that it might be valuable to get all Iraqi factions to meet for talks in the United States, Mr. Daini demurred.
. . . Mr. Daini, 35, is a member of the National Dialogue Front, a Sunni Arab political group led by Saleh al-Mutlak, a former Baath Party official who insists that the Baath Party, the party of Saddam Hussein, was the best party ever to govern Iraq." [1]

"Ayad owns a hotel in the southern city of Karbala, home to two of Shiism’s most important shrines. His wife and two daughters wear veils. He believes that the violence in Iraq is a Sunni and American conspiracy against Shiites, and he argues that Iran is the best ally of Iraqi Shiites.
. . . The Sunnis, he said, have 'oppressed us since the days of the Prophet, and now it is our chance to hit back and rule.'
According to Ayad, a Shiite takeover in Iraq would set a good model for the Shiites of Lebanon, where they number about a third of the population, and Bahrain, where they are a majority.
'Perhaps the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia will act too, rid themselves of the Sunni oppression against them, and rule or at least separate themselves from Riyadh and create their own state.'
It is exactly this possibility that has made the Sunni Arab regimes fear a Shiite regional revolt and moved some to support the Sunni insurgency in Iraq or at least to voice their resentment of the Iraqi Shiite government, which is seen as being biased against Iraqi Sunnis.
. . . 'When we fought the Persians during the 1980s, we were wrong. We’re Shiites before being Iraqis. Sunnis invented national identity to rule us.' "

Op-ed by Hussain Abdul-Hussain, "a former reporter for The Daily Star of Lebanon." [2]

Peace thru oppression?

source
[1] Shane, Scott & Wong, Edward. (The New York Times). Antiwar Iraqi in Washington Has a More Sectarian Agenda at Home. May 14, 2007.
[2] Abdul-Hussain, Hussain. (The New York Times). In Iraq, the play was the thing. May 7, 2007.

posted: wednesday, may 16, 2007, 6:14 AM ET

update: wednesday, may 18, 2007, 6:29 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Kurds want their oil fields, Sunnis want oil unity

"Politicians from the . . . Kurdish region say measures in the law that would take undeveloped oil fields away from regional governments and have a new national oil company oversee them are unconstitutional.
'Iraq, frankly, does not have the money to invest in oil fields,' said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish region's minister of natural resources. He added that the Kurds are disputing four annexes to the draft law that would dilute their ability to exploit oil in their territory. If the draft isn't 'watered down,' Kurdish regional authorities will not support it, he said.
The Kurds also don't trust the central government to distribute oil revenue, saying it has been behind in payments in other instances. Some have suggested that a fund be set up outside Iraq to dole out that money. 'We are asking for our fair share and guarantees that we will receive it,' Hawrami said.
Sunni Arabs and some secular Shiite politicians, however, stand firm that the central government must control oil production and revenue distribution. 'If we want to keep the unity of Iraq, the best way is to keep the oil under the authority of the central government,' said Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni with the Iraqi National List party of former prime minister Ayad Allawi. *
While some Kurds favor allowing agreements that would share production with foreign oil companies, many Sunnis and Shiites are against them on nationalistic grounds. They prefer service contracts."

source
Raghavan, Sudarsan. (The Washington Post). Baghdad's Fissures and Mistrust Keep Political Goals Out of Reach. April 26, 2007.

footnote
* The main reason for some sort of centralized distribution of oil revenue, whether from the Iraqi national government or somewhere else, should be the fair distribution of these revenues. It should not be used to keep regions or provinces from achieving a more autonomous status, if that's what they want.

posted: saturday, april 28, 2007, 6:07 PM ET
update: sunday, april 29, 2007, 4:42 AM ET


related posting
Should Iraq's oil fields be nationalized? April 11, 2007.

tags:

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Mixed marriage massacre

"The bad blood began to rise a few months ago in northern Iraq with the kind of interfaith love so reviled by Iraq's religious extremists: A Muslim woman eloped with a member of the tiny Yazidi religious sect.
It erupted in a massacre Sunday, police said, when Sunni gunmen in Mosul hijacked a busload of mostly Yazidi workers from a nearby town and shot and killed 23 of them, one by one.
The mass killing was the latest attack on religious minorities in Iraq, where human rights groups say Christians, Jews and members of other, smaller sects are often killed, persecuted or forced to convert by Muslim extremists. Last month in Kirkuk, two elderly Chaldean Catholic nuns were killed by armed men who stormed their house as they slept.
. . . 'They don't know the language of negotiation,' he said of the killers, who he said were probably members of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. 'They only know the language of weapons.' "

source
Brulliard, Karin. (The Washington Post). An Iraqi Massacre Rooted in Interfaith Love. April 23, 2007.

related posting
Mixed marriages targeted: Is mixed region a solution? March 6, 2007.

posted: wednesday, april 25, 2007, 4:37 PM ET


tags:

Labels: , ,

Sunni "gated community" controversy

"The U.S. military is walling off at least 10 of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods and using biometric technology to track some of their residents, creating what officers call 'gated communities' in an attempt to carve out oases of safety in this war-ravaged city.
The plan drew widespread condemnation in Iraq this past week. On Sunday night, Prime Minister Nouri-al Maliki told news services that he would work to halt construction of a wall around the Sunni district of Adhamiyah, which residents said would aggravate sectarian tensions by segregating them from Shiite neighbors.
. . . The tactic is part of the two-month-old U.S. and Iraqi counterinsurgency plan to calm sectarian strife and is loosely modeled after efforts in cities such as Tall Afar and Fallujah, where the military says it has curbed violence by strictly controlling access. The gated communities concept has produced mixed results in previous wars -- including failure in Vietnam, where peasants were forcibly moved to fortified hamlets, only to become sympathizers of the insurgency.
. . . [S]outhern Ghazaliyah is a base for al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups." [1]

"The barrier quickly drew criticism from Adhamiyah residents, who . . . likened it to the barriers Israel has constructed around the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which are much-maligned in the Arab world. Other critics joined the outcry, among them human rights activists and representatives of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of whom told reporters in Najaf that the walls amounted to a 'siege of the city.'
. . . Dawood al-Azami, deputy director of the Adhamiyah local council, said 90 percent of respondents to a survey distributed in the neighborhood on Sunday were strongly opposed to the wall, the Associated Press reported.
U.S. military officials say many residents of the city's newly walled-off neighborhoods are pleased with the barriers. Mohammad al-Kabi [a building contractor] is one.
. . . Checkpoints and road closures already have severed his ties to friends and business partners on the other side of wall, he said. There used to be daily clashes on his street. Now, with the wall going up, he said he feels more protected.
'There are no other options,' said Kabi, a Shiite Muslim. 'It has reduced the violence. The snipers are not shooting at us anymore.' [2]

"The strong reaction underscores the sense of powerlessness Iraqis feel in the face of the American military, whose presence is all the more pervasive as an increasing number of troops move on to the city’s streets.
And it has proved to be an unlikely boon for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, making the Shiite politician — at least for now — into a champion for Sunnis because he publicly opposed the wall’s construction." [3]

source
[1] Brulliard, Karin. (The Washington Post). 'Gated Communities' For the War-Ravaged. April 23, 2007.
[2] Bruillard, Karin. (The Washington Post). Iraq Blast Kills 9 GIs, Injures 20 At Outpost. April 24, 2007.
[3] Rubin, Alissa J. (The New York Times). Frustration Over Wall Unites Sunni and Shiite. April 24, 2007.

posted: wednesday, april 25, 2007, 3:48 PM ET


tags:

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Oil-autonomy increase Turkey-Kurd friction

"The prime minister on Monday warned Iraqi Kurds against interfering in southeastern Turkey, where the Kurdish majority is fighting Turkish security forces, saying 'the price for them will be very high.'
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was responding to Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, who said Iraqi Kurds would retaliate for any Turkish interference in northern Iraq by stirring up trouble in southeastern Turkey.
. . . Turkey fears that any moves toward greater independence for Kurds in northern Iraq could incite Turkey's own estimated 14 million Kurds to outright rebellion.
Turkey is especially concerned about Barzani's bid to incorporate the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk into his semiautonomous region, fearing that Iraqi Kurds will use revenues from the city's oil wealth to fund a bid for independence.
. . . [T]he Iraqi government decided to implement a constitutional requirement to determine the status of Kirkuk . . . by the end of the year. The plan is expected to turn Kirkuk and its vast oil reserves over to Kurdish control, a step rejected by many of Iraq's Arabs and its Turkmen." [1]

"Kurdish boldness also comes at a critical time for Turkey, which is facing a growing threat in its own Kurdish region from separatist guerrillas raiding out of northern Iraq and has a presidential election coming up that could aggravate tensions between Islamist and secular Turks.
The fallout already has shaken relations between the United States and Turkey, a longtime ally increasingly frustrated that the overstretched American military in Iraq cannot crack down on Kurdish guerrillas.
That has the United States in a bind _ 'unwilling to open a new front in northern Iraq. Nor can it afford to lose its support from Iraq's Kurdish population,' said Dr. Andrew McGregor, a security analyst and Kurdish expert in Canada.
. . . [T]he opponents within al-Maliki's administration [to the Kirkuk resettlement program] caved in after the Kurds threatened to resign from the Cabinet _ a move that would have spelled the end of the fragile, U.S.-backed governing coalition.
. . . The Kurds used . . . hardball tactics . . . to win concessions granting them a major say in what companies are granted rights to exploit Iraqi oilfields in Kurdish-controlled areas." [2]

sources
[1] Fraser, Suzan. (The Associated Press). Turkey Warns Iraqi Kurds on Interference. April 9, 2007.
[2] Reid, Robert H. (The Associated Press). Ambitions of Iraqi Kurds Worry Turkey. April 17, 2007.

posted: saturday, april 21, 2007, 6:04 AM ET

update: saturday, april 21, 2007, 6:17 AM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Should Iraq's oil fields be nationalized?

Maybe if Iraq's oil fields were nationalized, the Sunnis would feel more secure about getting their fair share of oil revenue and wouldn't object to the federalist-autonomous-region preferences of a majority of the Shiites and Kurds. *

Nationalizing the fields might also lessen some of the concerns of Turkey over the possibility of Kirkuk being annexed to Kurdistan.

Iraq's constitution already says that the country's oil belongs to all Iraqis. ** Nationalizing the fields in which that oil lays would just be another step in that same general direction.


footnotes
* In a
March 19, 2007 poll by ABC News and others, 59% of Shiites and 79% of Kurds favored either regional states with a federal government or independent states. Only 3% of Sunnis favored either of these two options, favoring a strongly centralized national government instead. (question 14)
** "Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates." (
Iraqi Constitution, Article 110)
*** I'm having second thoughts about this idea. Nationalization could lead to manipulation or coercion by those controlling Iraq's oil or revenue distribution. (see More thoughts on draft oil law).

posted: wednesday, april 11, 2007, 11:55 PM ET
update: tuesday, may 18, 2007, 6:38 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Secularists want more influence in Iraq

"The forgotten secularists of Iraq are making political maneuvers they hope will strengthen their voice and position them to seize more power before the next elections."
. . . Iyad Jamaleddin, a Shiite cleric who says that the people of Iraq want a secular government, "has a conference planned for this summer to launch what he calls the Iraqi Democratic Secular Movement. Former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi and former foreign minister Adnan Pachachi, meanwhile, have been barnstorming Iraq and the Middle East in recent weeks to gain support for a proposed coalition of groups both inside the parliament and outside the government that would unite secularists and moderates from different sectarian backgrounds.
. . . Critics of the current Shiite-led government complain that Islamic theology infuses many of its decisions.
. . . 'We want to be very careful not to push the country toward civil war . . . ,' said Hachim Hasani, a secular Sunni member of Allawi's faction. 'It's going to be very difficult. . . . You've got all these different groups who are not in harmony among themselves. I don't know if they're going to be able to build something out of that.' " [1]

There are also bills coming before Parliament like the draft oil law and the draft Baathist law that, if passed, could do much to curb the violence and make it easier for the secularists to get things they want. So while it's important for the so-called secularists to organize and have influence within the Iraqi political structures, they don't want to do things that would harm these important steps towards national reconcilliation.

They might also think about forming a secularly governed, mixed region or province when the new federalism law takes effect in about a year. The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds have their own regions or provinces from which they can live their lives as they want while still working towards building a better country for all Iraqis. Why can't secularists, who apparently comprise a significant portion of Iraq, have the same thing?

And if it is going to truly be a mixed, secularly governed province or region, then its mixed, secular nature should be the foundation of harmony on which it is built, despite differences that the various groups may have. (This new province or region would not be anti-religion.)

source
[1] Partlow, Joshua. (The Washington Post). Putting Faith in the Masses To Forge New Secular Rule. April 6, 2007.

related posting
Mixed marriages targeted: Is mixed region a solution? March 06, 2007.

posted: sunday, april 8, 2007, 10:02 AM ET

update: sunday, april 8, 2007, 10:20 AM ET

tags:

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Khalizad met insurgents / Constitution regions bad, critics say

"The senior American envoy in Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks last year with men he believed represented major insurgent groups in a drive to bring militant Sunni Arabs into politics.
'There were discussions with the representatives of various groups in the aftermath of the elections, and during the formation of the government before the Samarra incident, and some discussions afterwards as well,' Mr. Khalilzad said in a farewell interview on Friday at his home inside the fortified Green Zone.
. . . An American official said it was difficult to determine whether the people Mr. Khalilzad met with really were influential representatives of insurgent groups, as they claimed.
. . . The most complex legacy of Mr. Khalilzad — and arguably the most divisive — is the Constitution, passed in a national referendum in October 2005. Sunni Arab voters overwhelmingly rejected it, but most Shiites and Kurds, who make up 80 percent of the population, supported it. That paved the way for full-term elections in December 2005.
. . . Mr. Khalilzad and his colleagues, the critics say, were so fixated on meeting the political timetable laid out by the White House that they pushed through a document that may have inflamed the Sunni-led insurgency by enshrining strong regional control. The Constitution reaffirms Sunni Arab beliefs that Shiites and Kurds want oil and territory." [1]

The new draft oil law hasn't fixed that? And what about that charge that the oil law is cheating Iraq out of much or most of its oil revenue?

source
[1] Wong, Edward. (The New York Times). U.S. Envoy Says He Had Meetings With Iraq Rebels. March 26, 2007.

related posting
Is draft oil law cheating Iraq out of revenue? March 14, 2007.

posted: thursday, march 29, 2007, 12:19 AM ET
update: thursday, march 29, 2007, 12:22 AM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, March 23, 2007

Sunnis skew poll down; federalism good for Sunnis; U.S. criticized, but still wanted

In most of the questions in a poll of Iraqis by ABC News and other news organizations, the nationwide "net" percentages (Shiite-Sunni-Kurd combined) for these questions seem to be skewed downward by the highly negative responses of the Sunnis. For example, in question 1 on how life is going these days, it is said that 39% of the nationwide "net" responded that life was good. But in the sect breakdown portion of the question, 53% of Shiites (who comprise around 60% of Iraqis) and 68% of Kurds (15-20% of Iraqis) said that life was good. A mere 7% of Sunnis (15-20% of Iraqis), on the other hand, said that life was good. So the "net" percentage gets skewed way down to 39%, even though 53% of the Shiites and 68% of the Kurds, said that life was good. And this type of skewed "net" percentage is the percentage that often gets reported.

Wouldn't a more accurate description be that a majority of Iraqis say life is good with the exception being the Sunnis, comprising 15-20% of Iraqis, who overwhelmingly say that life is not good? Not only is it more clear and accurate, but it allows one to focus on potential problem areas and solutions.

Most news accounts of the poll point out this disparity between Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish responses. But I think the point should be made more strongly and pervasively. And as I said before, most of the questions in the poll seem to follow this pattern.

From the poll results, it also appears that autonomous, semi-autonomous or independent regions are gaining favor, at least among Shiites and Kurds. In question 14, 59% of Shiites and 79% of Kurds supported either regional states with a federal government or separate independent states. Only 3% of Sunnis favored either of these choices. The other choice was a "unified Iraq with central government in Baghdad" which 97% of Sunnis favored as opposed to 41% of Shiites and 20% of Kurds.

I'm not sure why the Sunnis still so strongly favor this highly centralized form of government. It seems that Iraq has been trying this type of government since the fall of Saddam and according to the poll, the Sunnis are pretty miserable on most counts. Only 24% of Sunnis have confidence in the police and only 8% have confidence in the national government. Even with their local leaders, only 12% of Sunnis have confidence. This is contrasted with 57% of Shiites and 80% of Kurds who have confidence in their local leaders with similar high percentages for the police and the national government.

And who exactly do the Sunnis want to put in charge of this highly centralized government? Saddam and most of his inner circle are either dead, in prison or in hiding. The Sunnis have no faith in their current local leaders. They don't trust the current majority Shiite national institutions. They certainly don't like the Americans. So who's left?

The Sunnis' current view of their situation seems pretty hopeless. (Perhaps a reflection of their dire situation.) It's possible that the remaining Baathists could take charge, but the Shiites and Kurds seem reluctant to letting Baathists back into most positions of power, let alone letting them run the country again.

On the other hand, with an autonomous, semi-autonomous or independent region, the Sunnis could possibly let the Baathists run things in their Sunni region, if they wanted, as long as they weren't hostile towards the Shiite and Kurdish regions. (They would have to do a better job of chosing their leaders than they are apparently doing now, however. Perhaps they could get some help in this area.) But the possibility of some level of autonomy doesn't seem to appeal to the Sunnis.

But it should since the future looks good for a cooperative, accommodating Sunni population. The oil law seems like it has a good chance of passing, so the Sunnis would have all that oil revenue coming in to build any type of relatively peaceful region they wanted with their own trusted security forces and providers of basic services. It doesn't appear that Iraq is going to break into independent states anytime soon, so there would still be a central, federal government that they could turn to if they needed help. And based on their similar population numbers, the Sunnis would have as much power on the federal level as the Kurds who seem to be satisfied with their current power level. And having federalized regions doesn't mean that the different regions have to be isolated from one another either. They could be as close or as distant as they chose to be, respecting basic rights at all times, of course. Why wouldn't the Sunnis want that for themselves? Why is that such a bad choice?

One thing the poll says that Sunnis and Shiites generally agree on is their negative impression of America's role in Iraq. Though they still apparently would like the U.S. to stay until the security situation improves. The Kurds support the U.S.

source
ABC News. ABC News/USA Today/BBC/ARD poll -Iraq: Where things stand. Ebbing hope in a landscape of loss marks a national survey of Iraq. March 19, 2007.

posted: friday, march 23, 2007, 8:36 PM ET

update: monday, march 26, 2007, 11:38 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Mixed marriages targeted: Is mixed region a solution?

"As U.S. and Iraqi forces attempt to pacify the capital, mixed couples who symbolize Iraq's once famous tolerance are increasingly entangled by hate.
. . . 'In the absence of security, Iraqis are protecting themselves by turning to their sects and their tribes,' said Zina Abdul Rasul, a U.N. human rights worker who herself is a product of a mixed marriage. 'It is becoming normal to hear about mixed families breaking down.'
. . . While there are no official statistics, sociologists estimate that nearly a third of Iraqi marriages are unions between members of different sectarian or ethnic communities. In the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, many Iraqis argued that the prevalence of such unions showed that Iraqis cared more about their Arab or national identity than their sect, which would spare the country a civil war.
But Iraq's sectarian strife has risen sharply since the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra by Sunni militants a year ago. Since then, more than 500,000 Iraqis have fled their homes, a number that is growing by 50,000 every month, according to the United Nations. The vast majority have left mixed areas, the main battlefields of the sectarian war." [1]

Could a mixed, secular province or region be a solution? If 1 in 3 marriages are mixed marriages, then it seems that they would make up a significant number of people. If you add other possible inhabitants such as family members of the mixed marriages, non-sectarian secularists, minority groups, artistic/creative types, other targeted groups or individuals, or people who would just enjoy living in a mixed, secular area, the number would be even larger. *

Last year's federalism law is due to take effect in a little over a year. It will allow provinces to vote on whether to form semi-autonomous provinces or join with other provinces to form semi-autonomous regions. There's no reason that a mixed, secular province or region could not be formed when this law takes effect.

Of course, having a country where one could live peacefully in any location would probably be the preference. But considering all the violence over the past years, this sort of countrywide peace, if ever achieved, may be an uneasy peace at best for awhile. And even with relative peace, there is no guarantee that mixed marriages and others will not continue to be targeted. So the formation of a mixed, secular province or region with security designed especially for its inhabitants seems like it would be a desirable goal.

footnote
* Christians might also be included among these groups unless they succeed in forming their own area.

source
[1] Raghavan, Sudarsan. (The Washington Post). Marriages Between Sects Come Under Siege in Iraq. March 4, 2007.

posted: tuesday, march 6, 2007, 6:30 PM ET

update: saturday, march 10, 2007, 9:10 AM ET

tags:

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Draft oil law details

"· Reaffirms that oil and gas resources are owned by all the people of Iraq and contains a firm commitment to revenue-sharing among regions and provinces on the basis of population.
· Establishes a predictable framework and processes for federal-regional cooperation that demonstrate the government's commitment to democracy and federalism.
· Creates a principal policymaking body for energy -- the Federal Council on Oil and Gas -- that will have representatives from all of Iraq's regions and oil-producing provinces.
· Ensures that all revenue from oil sales will go into a single national account and that provinces will receive direct shares of revenue, thereby significantly increasing local control of financial resources.
· Establishes international standards for transparency and mandates public disclosure of contracts and associated revenue and payments. This is essential to build confidence in the new political order and to counter corruption.
. . . It also requires best practices in environmental protection and field management and development."

Op-ed by Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

source
Khalilzad, Zalmay. (The Washington Post). A Shared Stake in Iraq's Future. March 3, 2007.

posted: sunday, march 4, 2007, 9:12 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , ,

Autonomous region proposal for W. Sahara

"Neighboring Algeria helped create and then lent armed support to the Polisario Front, a guerrilla group that resisted Moroccan rule [in the Western Sahara].
. . . For many years there was fierce fighting, from which tens of thousands of families fled, and eventually came under the care of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Though the violence concluded with a United Nations-brokered cease-fire in 1991, the Western Sahara’s inhabitants remain caught in the unresolved conflict.
. . . After a year-long national discussion, Morocco is to propose, at the United Nations in April, a plan to establish the Western Sahara as an autonomous region under Moroccan sovereignty. Autonomy would provide effective self-determination for the Sahrawis, allowing for local decision-making and control over economic, social, linguistic and cultural issues. Successful autonomy regions like this exist elsewhere. The Trentino-Alto Adige region in Italy and the autonomous region of Madeira in Portugal are examples, as are Catalonia and the Basque Provinces in Spain. The creation of these quasi-states has unlocked longstanding disputes once thought resolvable only by force."

Op-ed by Frederick Vreeland, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco

sources
[1] Vreeland, Frederick. (The New York Times). Will Freedom Bloom in the Desert? March 3, 2007.

posted: sunday, march 4, 2007, 8:34 PM ET

update: tuesday, march 6, 2007, 11:27 PM ET

tags:

Labels: ,

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Draft oil law approved by Iraq cabinet

"Iraq's cabinet approved draft legislation Monday that would enable the government to manage the country's vast oil resources and distribute revenue throughout the country, a step toward meeting a U.S. demand that the country's parliament pass such a law.
. . . The draft oil law, approved by Iraq's cabinet after months of intense negotiations, must still be approved by parliament. Ministers agreed to a goal of enacting the legislation by May, a senior Iraqi official said on condition of anonymity.
'If this law is enacted, it is truly an important breakthrough to establishing the political economy of what we want to see: an Iraq that is democratic, federal and united,' Barham Salih, one of Iraq's two deputy prime ministers, said in an interview.
The draft law calls for oil revenue throughout the country to be deposited in a federal government account and redistributed to Iraq's 18 provinces, most likely on a per capita basis, said Salih, the chairman of the negotiating committee working on the legislation. A secondary piece of legislation will address in more detail the mechanisms of revenue distribution, he added." [1]

"Distributing revenue by population is not guaranteed to placate the feuding parties because no accurate census exists.
. . . The minority Sunni Arabs, who ruled Iraq for decades before the toppling of Saddam Hussein and are now leading the insurgency, have chafed at rule by the Shiites and Kurds partly because they fear that those two groups might hoard oil wealth for themselves. Sunni Arab leaders have resisted attempts by the Kurds and some Shiite politicians to create laws allowing for greater regional autonomy.
The draft law says that all revenues from current and future oil fields will be collected by the central government and redistributed to regional or provincial governments by population, in theory ensuring an equitable distribution of profits. That method could help assuage Sunni Arabs hostile to Kurdish and Shiite autonomy.
The attitudes of Sunni Arabs could also soften if more oil exploration is done on their land. Iraqi officials recently increased their estimates of the amount of oil and natural gas deposits in Sunni Arab territory." [2]

sources
[1] Partlow, Joshua & Londono, Ernesto. (The Washington Post). Iraq's Cabinet Backs Contentious Oil Measure. February 27, 2007.
[2] Wong, Edward. (The New York Times). Iraqis Reach an Accord on Oil Revenues. February 27, 2007.

posted: tuesday, february 27, 2007, 11:58 AM ET


tags:

Labels: , ,

Anti-Qaeda mosque bombed; Habbaniyah resists al-Qaeda's strict Islam

"During what turned out to be the last Friday prayer he led, Imam Mohammad al-Marawi urged worshipers at a Sunni mosque in the western city of Habbaniyah to stand firmly against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni insurgent group that has a strong following in the area.
. . . Less than 24 hours later, someone in a Mercedes truck drove up next to the mosque and detonated explosives hidden under a load of stone and marble.
. . . [W]itnesses said that unlike other large attacks, this one did not appear to have been driven by sectarian rivalries . . . but rather was probably carried out as a warning from Sunni extremists to Sunnis who support the U.S.-backed Iraqi government.
Tribal leaders in Habbaniyah and other Sunni insurgent strongholds in volatile Anbar province have tried to mobilize civilians against al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has sought to impose strict Islamic code in several regions and has frequently attacked U.S. and Iraqi forces.
. . . Despite warnings from Sunni insurgents, women in Habbaniyah are not forced to cover their hair with the traditional hijab, and residents are free to use the Internet and cellphones."

source
Londono, Ernesto. (The Washington Post). At Least 40 Die in Bombing At Sunni Mosque in W. Iraq. February 25, 2007.

posted: tuesday, february 27, 2007, 11:11 AM ET

update: tuesday, february 27, 2007, 12:02 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Sunni extremists enforce strict Islam in Tarmiyah, some say

"Sunni extremists have dramatically altered the fabric of the region in recent months, said a 35-year-old shop owner who lives across the street from the military outpost in Tarmiyah, [a city north of Baghdad].
'You can no longer find someone selling cigarettes, and you won't find men selling women's underwear,' he said, offering an example of strict Islamic codes enforced in the area. Women now cover everything but their eyes and 'barbers can't offer modern haircuts,' added the man, who confirmed the version of the attack provided by Iraqi officials."

source
Londono, Ernesto & Ricks, Thomas E. Ricks. (The Washington Post). Brazen Pre-Dawn Attack on U.S. Outpost in Iraq Kills 3, Injures 17. February 20, 2007.

posted: wednesday, february 21, 2007, 7:50 PM ET


tags:

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Serbia rejects Kosovo plan / Partition alternative

"Serbia rejected a United Nations proposal on Friday that paves the way for an independent Kosovo, setting up a possible showdown between its supporter, Russia, and the West over the disputed territory’s final status.
. . . The proposal, which is still subject to weeks of negotiation between the two sides, will require Russian acquiescence in order to win Security Council approval. Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power over the plan, has until now backed Serbia’s position that Kosovo must remain an integral, even if an autonomous, part of Serbia.
. . . While the plan does not mention independence, its provisions describe de facto statehood for Kosovo — providing for an army, constitution and flag — though it would still be protected by NATO and overseen by the international community for the indefinite future. The plan would also allow Kosovo to declare independence if the package is approved by the Security Council." [1]

"Kosovo, which is more than 90 percent ethnic Albanian, has struggled since the early 20th century to free itself from the dominance of Belgrade. With the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s the fight began anew, but Serbia resisted fiercely.
The war was marked by atrocities on both sides and a horrific cycle of 'ethnic cleansing,' as the formerly mixed Serbian and ethnic Albanian populations pulled apart.
. . . While many people see fixing Kosovo’s eventual independence as the last chapter of Yugoslav disintegration, Serbs see it as the dismemberment of their homeland.
The province . . . is home to the Serbian Orthodox Church’s most sacred sites.
. . . [F]ew Americans . . . have as deep an emotional connection to place as many Europeans have.
That is why Europe . . . is not united behind the United Nations plan. Countries facing their own secessionist movements . . . are skeptical of what they see as an American effort to jam a solution into place so Washington can turn its attention elsewhere." [2]

"[E]very proposal assumes partition must be ruled out.
. . . The international community’s all-Kosovo fixation has forced it to concoct complex power-sharing schemes to accommodate two mistrustful populations before considering independence. The costs of this ‘‘standards before status’’ approach have been predictable: an uncertain investment environment, frustrated expectations and a fragility that destabilizes the region.
It would be one thing if these mutually suspicious populations were inextricably linked, but they aren’t. The majority of Serbs in Kosovo live in a small strip in the far north. Partition would allow them to continue living in Serbia. The remaining pockets would be less threatening to Albanians, making Kosovo more governable, and the small, remaining Serbian population safer.
. . . There is nothing magic or moral about Kosovo’s borders. They are an artifact of Tito’s Yugoslavia, and they never corresponded to ethnicity or contributed to social peace. If borders fail to ensure security or promote welfare, they should be changed. That’s why we favored separating Kosovo from Serbia in the first place. That is a partition, too. So why is severing a smaller part of Serbia inherently wrong?"

Op-ed by Timothy William Waters who "helped prepare the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Kosovo." [3]

sources
[1] Smith, Craig S. (The New York Times). Serbia Rejects Plan That Could Lead to Kosovo Independence. February 3, 2007.
[2] Smith, Craig S. (The New York Times). On Road to Kosovo Independence, a Warning: Go Slow. February 4, 2007.
[3] Waters, Timothy William. (The New York Times). A Separate Peace. February 1, 2007.

posted: sunday, february 4, 2007, 10:06 AM ET

tags:

Labels: ,

Partition, strongman or anarchy are likely outcomes, federalism may be part of answer, says National Intelligence Estimate

"If strengthened Iraqi Security Forces (I.S.F.), more loyal to the government and supported by coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq’s population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer term stability, political progress, and economic recovery.
Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this estimate [12 to 18 months]."

"Decades of subordination to Sunni political, social, and economic domination have made the Shia deeply insecure about their hold on power. This insecurity leads the Shia to mistrust U.S. efforts to reconcile Iraqi sects and reinforces their unwillingness to engage with the Sunnis on a variety of issues, including adjusting the structure of Iraq’s federal system, reining in Shia militias, and easing de-Baathification.
Many Sunni Arabs remain unwilling to accept their minority status, believe the central government is illegitimate and incompetent, and are convinced that Shia dominance will increase Iranian influence over Iraq, in ways that erode the state’s Arab character and increase Sunni repression.
The absence of unifying leaders among the Arab Sunni or Shia with the capacity to speak for or exert control over their confessional groups limits prospects for reconciliation."

"Despite real improvements, the Iraqi Security Forces (I.S.F.) — particularly the Iraqi police — will be hard pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against Shia militias with success. Sectarian divisions erode the dependability of many units, many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls, and a number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of the areas where they were recruited."

"If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation."

"A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq’s current trajectory. They include:
¶Broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism to begin to reduce one of the major sources of Iraq’s instability.
¶Significant concessions by Shia and Kurds to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism.
¶A bottom-up approach — deputizing, resourcing, and working more directly with neighborhood watch groups and establishing grievance committees — to help mend frayed relationships between tribal and religious groups, which have been mobilized into communal warfare over the past three years.
A key enabler for all of these steps would be stronger Iraqi leadership, which could enhance the positive impact of all the above developments."

"A number of identifiable internal security and political triggering events, including sustained mass sectarian killings, assassination of major religious and political leaders, and a complete Sunni defection from the government have the potential to convulse severely Iraq’s security environment. Should these events take place, they could spark an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and shift Iraq’s trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences. Three prospective security paths might then emerge:
¶Chaos leading to partition. With a rapid deterioration in the capacity of Iraq’s central government to function, security services and other aspects of sovereignty would collapse. Resulting widespread fighting could produce de facto partition, dividing Iraq into three mutually antagonistic parts. Collapse of this magnitude would generate fierce violence for at least several years, ranging well beyond the time frame of this estimate, before settling into a partially stable end-state.
¶Emergence of a Shia strongman. Instead of a disintegrating central government producing partition, a security implosion could lead Iraq’s potentially most powerful group, the Shia, to assert its latent strength.
¶Anarchic fragmentation of power. The emergence of a checkered pattern of local control would present the greatest potential for instability, mixing extreme ethno-sectarian violence with debilitating intra-group clashes."

source
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. National Intelligence Estimate. Prospects for Iraq's Stability. January 2007.

posted: sunday, february 4, 2007, 9:23 AM ET

update: wednesday, february 7, 2007, 5:40 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Kosovo independence agreed to by U.S. and Europe

"Nearly eight years after NATO warplanes intervened in a bitter ethnic conflict between Serbs and rebellious Kosovo Albanians in the former Yugoslavia, the United States and its European allies have agreed to support Kosovo's permanent secession from Serbia under continuing international supervision, according to senior U.S. and European officials.
The decision is likely to lead, possibly as early as this summer, to the formal creation of a new Connecticut-size country in southeastern Europe with membership in the United Nations and, eventually, its own army, the officials said. But a foreign diplomat posted in the capital would retain authority to fire officials and rescind legislation deemed divisive, while leaving routine matters of government to local control.
Under the plan, NATO troops would continue to patrol the new state to ensure peace and help protect minorities, but would gradually withdraw.
. . . Kosovo has been run by the United Nations since 1999. That year, a 78-day air campaign by NATO forced out the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army, ending its brutal war against guerrillas fighting for self-rule for the province's ethnic Albanian majority."

source
Smith, R. Jeffrey. (The Washington Post). January 26, 2007. Kosovo Wins Support For Split From Serbia.

posted: sunday, january 28, 2007, 7:33 PM ET

update: sunday, january 28, 2007, 10:38 PM ET

tag:

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Iraq may be heading towards break up, historians say

"[Boston University historian David] Fromkin said, Iraq once looked as though it might hold together, under the late President Saddam Hussein's iron fist. But today, "if I had to bet, I would bet on disintegration" into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish entities.
[Phebe] Marr, of the U.S. Institute of Peace, has seen a lot of Iraqi history, having first gone there in the 1950s. . . . "I have problems myself seeing where it's going to end," she said. But "Iraq could tend to break up."
. . . Al-Hadithi, the Baghdad political analyst, sees only one chance, and it doesn't lie in new U.S. military strategies.
"What is needed," he said, "is drastic political changes and international involvement under the mandate of the United Nations. Otherwise the country is heading toward the bottom _ civil war and partition."

source
The Associated Press. Historians Offer Dismal Iraq Forecast. January 21, 2007.

posted: tuesday, january 23, 2007, 3:48 PM ET

update: tuesday, january 23, 2007, 8:25 PM ET

tags:

Labels: ,


View My Stats