View previous stories
	Iraqi Leaders call for foreign forces to set a timetable for withdrawal by Daily Star, AAP, Reuters, UN News Egypt / Iraq   Dec 2005   The U.S. should set a withdrawal deadline, by Rami G. Khouri . (The Daily Star)   The center of gravity of discussion on Iraq has shifted dramatically in the past two months, from the mess the Americans created to the mess the Iraqis must deal with. Change and transition are in the air in the United States and Iraq, as the Bush administration grasps that most Iraqis and Arabs, and now most Americans, want a clear plan for the U.S. to withdraw its troops.   The two most visible changes within the U.S. that a visitor sees are the altered nature of President George W. Bush"s rhetoric, and the prevalent expectation that the U.S. will start withdrawing some of its troops in the coming months. Behind the dizzying political rhetoric lies the one dynamic that overrides all others: will this week"s election in Iraq usher in a legitimate Iraqi government and Parliament, replacing what is seen as an illegitimate American military occupation and political administration?   In four speeches he gave in recent weeks, Bush has adopted a slightly more humble and realistic tone, while insisting that American troops will remain until the day of an imprecisely defined "victory." He has seemed unconvincing, repeating old arguments that most Americans no longer find credible, according to opinion polls.   But this rhetorical onslaught is less important than developments on the ground in Iraq, where the parliamentary elections may lead to an important transitional phase in which we might finally witness the transfer of genuine power from American troops to Iraqi politicians. Much debate will continue about whether the elections on Thursday were legitimate or not, and whether the new Iraqi Parliament and government, with the growing national army and police system, will be able to restore stability and security throughout the country. In the coming months, Iraqis themselves will answer these questions, but they can only do so if they are free of American political and ideological tutelage.   The most important and urgent task at hand now is to speed up the creation of a stable national government and governance system that Iraqis themselves judge to be legitimate and representative. Elections can be a significant starting point for this, but only a fully sovereign, independent and credible Iraqi government can move quickly on improving security and bringing normalcy back into the lives of most citizens.   The fastest way to move toward that goal would be for the U.S. to announce that it is starting its military withdrawal and does not intend to maintain long-term bases in Iraq. As long as American troops and political meddling define Iraqi politics, any new Iraqi government - even elected by the people - will be seen as a puppet regime. It would remain a target of Iraqi skepticism as well as armed resistance by Iraqis and other foreign militants. Starting the American military retreat from Iraq is important because American troops will continue to be a divisive and destabilizing force, just as the American military presence in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 war was a major provocation leading to Osama bin Laden-style resistance and terror. Washington could link the speed of its withdrawal to how fast Iraqis generate a credible political and security system, but should set 18 months as a target date for leaving the country. Such a strategy would have a good chance of impacting quickly and positively on several crucial dimensions of Iraq today.   It would show Iraqis that that they can soon anticipate the benefits of national sovereignty and a politically legitimate government that is neither protected nor choreographed by American viceroys. It would also spur Iraqis to reach faster agreement on key constitutional and power-sharing issues that remain undefined to the satisfaction of all. A legitimate Iraqi government can do what the mighty American army could not: mobilize the popular will necessary to restore day-to-day security and stop attacks against infrastructure facilities - oil, electricity and water networks.   The American experiment in Iraq unfortunately has accelerated the re-tribalization of the country. The former sense of Iraqi citizenship has been replaced by a growing allegiance to sect, tribe or ethnic group - Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Kurdish, Turkmen - as the units that define citizens. An American military and political exit would help to slow down or even reverse this national fragmentation into ethnic and religious subgroups, most of which also have armed militias.   America"s adventure in Iraq has generated fear and meddling by neighbors like Syria, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, some of whom find the U.S. in Iraq an easy target. A military withdrawal would ideally, instead, engage the neighbors" cooperation in working for Iraqi stability and cohesion, and also perhaps in forging regional security arrangements, including improving ties with Syria and Iran.   Similarly, a sovereign Iraq free of American troops would have a better chance of attracting the vital Arab and international assistance that has been denied the country for fear of being associated with the controversial U.S. presence. At the same time, American troops leaving Iraq would take the wind out of those insurgents and terrorists who are motivated primarily by liberating a part of the "Islamic realm" from foreign dominance.   It"s hard to think of an act that would generate as much positive hope for Iraqis during their delicate transition to sovereignty and normalcy as the announcement of the start of an American military withdrawal. If the anticipated good things happen as proposed above, George W. Bush would be able to proclaim "mission accomplished" for a second time.   16 Dec. 2005   Steps toward withdrawal in Iraq. (The Age)   It is unrealistic to believe the election in Iraq will signal the end of bloodshed and instability there. US President George W. Bush conceded as much when, amid growing opposition to the war, he called on Americans to be patient about the continuing presence of their troops. Bush must be explicit about a time frame for withdrawing the troops. This is made more urgent in light of his acknowledgment that the insurgents in Iraq "are not going to give up because of a successful election ... so we can expect violence to continue." There is little doubt that this will be the case as long as the U.S. and its allies occupy the country. If he is genuine about shaping a free Iraq that could be an "inspiration" to the region, Bush must cede responsibility for security to United Nations peacekeepers, who have the experience required to facilitate a smooth transition to democracy.   Nov. 23, 2005 (Reuters)   The leaders of Iraq"s political factions, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, have called for all foreign forces to set a timetable for their departure. Shi"ite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders all agreed they want the US-led forces out so Iraqi security forces can assume control. Sh"ite, Kurdish and Sunni officials say the Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when foreign forces will leave and when they can enjoy peace and stability.   November 20, 2005   Iraqis air grievances at Cairo conference. (Reuters)   Iraqi politicians have begun a three-day reconciliation conference on the political future of their country, airing immediately some of the disputes that have dragged Iraq close to civil war.   Shiite Muslim politicians have condemned the insurgency, which is led mainly by Sunni Muslims. However, a leading Sunni politician says resistance is a legitimate response to US occupation.   Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says religious extremists who advocate violence and associates of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have no place in the political process.   But Harith al-Dhari, of the Muslim Clerics" Association, told the conference the Government is excluding people from jobs on ethnic and sectarian grounds.   Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is hosting the conference, says national reconciliation is the key to a successful political process in Iraq and to a gradual end to the presence of foreign forces. "The password for building the new Iraq is ensuring that all the sons of Iraq take part, without exception or marginalisation," he added.   The Arab League arranged the conference out of alarm that Iraq, once a pillar of the Arab community, is descending into chaos and towards sectarian conflict.   19 November 2005 (UN News)   Different Iraqi factions should reach understanding on national accord - Annan   To strengthen Iraq"s ongoing political process, the main elements of political and civil society must reach an understanding towards a national accord, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told delegates planning a Cairo conference on reconciliation in the war-wracked country.   It is my hope that this preparatory meeting will help the Iraqi parties agree on the next steps required to bring about mutual trust and a sense of shared responsibility, essential ingredients in enabling the people of Iraq to forge a national accord, as the foundation of a peaceful, united and democratic Iraq, he said in a message read by UN Iraq envoy Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General   Hailing the League of Arab States for its initiative to convene the Conference for Iraqi National Accord, Mr. Annan said regional initiatives have a crucial role to play in nurturing broad national dialogue and reconciliation in Iraq, in full respect of Iraq"s national sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.   The Secretary-General also pledged the UN"s support for an inclusive, participatory and transparent political process that is responsive to the aspirations of all of Iraq"s communities.   Echoing Mr. Annan"s message, Mr. Qazi, in his own speech, said the principal means of supporting and strengthening the political process in Iraq is to broaden it so that it brings in those groups that have not yet decided to participate.   This conference on Iraq will hopefully initiate a process in which serious differences of opinions on serious issues will not be barriers to dialogue, compromise and accord, he said. All those who are prepared to peacefully pursue their political objectives must participate in the endeavour to build the New Iraq in which their dreams and aspirations will find a place.   Mr. Qazi observed that Iraqis from different communities are often more candid when voicing their political positions to non-Iraqis than among themselves. To a great extent this is a matter of courtesy, but it can also impede the process of developing the essential base of understanding, trust and confidence for a viable national political process.   He called on all concerned to give priority to engaging each other in purposeful dialogue and in a manner that opens up discussion rather than closes it. This is the surest way to narrow the base for violence and extremism.   To foster a climate conducive to dialogue, he said human rights violations must cease. The abuse of human rights that we see on a daily basis through the resort to political violence on the one hand and inadequate controls on the conduct of security operations on the other, remains of very grave concern, he said. If not effectively addressed this situation can seriously impede the promotion of a national dialogue that can reach agreement on a national accord, he warned. Effectively addressing this situation may not be easy. But it is essential that this be done.
	An Andean Crisis of Democracy by Khaleej Times / NYT / OpenDemocracy   December 8 2005   "A dangerous neighbourhood", by Noam Chomsky. (Khaleej Times / UAE)   How Venezuela is keeping the Home Fires burning in Massachusetts," reads a recent full-page ad in major US newspapers from PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, and CITGO, its Houston-based subsidiary.   The ad describes a programme, encouraged by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, to sell heating oil at discount prices to low-income communities in Boston, the South Bronx and elsewhere in the United States — one of the more ironic gestures ever in the North-South dialogue.  The deal developed after a group of US senators sent a letter to nine major oil companies asking them to donate a portion of their recent record profits to help poor residents cover heating bills. The only response came from CITGO.   In the United States, commentary on the deal is grudging at best, saying that Chavez, who has accused the Bush administration of trying to overthrow his government, is motivated by political ends — unlike, for example, the purely humanitarian programmes of the US Agency for International Development.   Chavez’ heating oil is one among many challenges bubbling up from Latin America for the Washington planners of grand strategy. The noisy protests during President Bush’s trip last month to the Summit of the Americas, in Argentina, amplify the dilemma.   From Venezuela to Argentina, the hemisphere is getting completely out of control, with left-centre governments all the way through. Even in Central America, still suffering the aftereffects of President Reagan’s "war on terror," the lid is barely on.   In the southern cone, the indigenous populations have become much more active and influential, particularly in Bolivia and Ecuador, both major energy producers, where they either oppose production of oil and gas or want it to be domestically controlled. Some are even calling for an "Indian nation" in South America.   Meanwhile internal economic integration is strengthening, reversing relative isolation that dates back to the Spanish conquests. Furthermore, South-South interaction is growing, with major powers (Brazil, South Africa, India) in the lead, particularly on economic issues.   Latin America as a whole is increasing trade and other relations with the European Union and China, with some setbacks, but likely expansion, especially for raw materials exporters like Brazil and Chile.   Venezuela has forged probably the closest relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on a hostile U.S. government. Indeed, Washington’s thorniest problem in the region is Venezuela, which provides nearly 15 percent of U.S. oil imports.   Chavez, elected in 1998, displays the kind of independence that the US translates as defiance — as with Chavez’ ally Fidel Castro. In 2002, Washington embraced President Bush’s vision of democracy by supporting a military coup that very briefly overturned the Chavez government. The Bush administration had to back down, however, because of opposition to the coup in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.   Compounding Washington’s woes, Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming very close. They practice a barter system, each relying on its strengths. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil while in return Cuba organises literacy and health programmes, and sends thousands of teachers and doctors, who, as elsewhere, work in the poorest areas, previously neglected.   Joint Cuba-Venezuela projects are also having a considerable impact in the Caribbean countries, where, under a programme called Operation Miracle, Cuban doctors are providing health care to people who had no hope of receiving it, with Venezuelan funding.   Chavez has repeatedly won monitored elections and referenda despite overwhelming and bitter media hostility. Support for the elected government has soared during the Chavez years. The veteran Latin American correspondent Hugh O’ Shaughnessy explains why in a report for Irish Times: "In Venezuela, where an oil economy has over the decades produced a sparkling elite of superrich, a quarter of under-15s go hungry, for instance, and 60 per cent of people over 59 have no income at all. Less than a fifth of the population enjoys social security. Only now under President Chavez ... has medicine started to become something of a reality for the poverty-stricken majority in the rich but deeply divided — virtually nonfunctioning — society. Since he won power in democratic elections and began to transform the health and welfare sector which catered so badly to the mass of the population progress has been slow. But it has been perceptible ..."   Now Venezuela is joining Mercosur, South America’s leading trade bloc. Mercosur, which already includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, presents an alternative to the so-called Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, backed by the United States.   At issue in the region, as elsewhere around the world, is alternative social and economic models. Enormous, unprecedented popular movements have developed to expand cross-border integration — going beyond economic agendas to encompass human rights, environmental concerns, cultural independence and people-to-people contacts.   These movements are ludicrously called "anti-globalisation" because they favour globalisation directed to the interests of people, not investors and financial institutions. US problems in the Americas extend north as well as south. For obvious reasons, Washington has hoped to rely more on Canada, Venezuela and other non-Middle East oil resources.   But Canada’s relations with the United States are more "strained and combative" than ever before as a result of, among other issues, Washington’s rejection of NAFTA decisions favouring Canada. As Joel Brinkley reports in The New York Times, "Partly as a result, Canada is working hard to build up its relationship with China (and) some officials are saying Canada may shift a significant portion of its trade, particularly oil, from the United States to China." It takes real talent for the United States to alienate even Canada.   Washington’s Latin American policies are only enhancing US isolation, however. One recent example: For the 14th year in a row, the UN General Assembly voted against the US commercial embargo against Cuba. The vote on the resolution was 182 to 4: the United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Micronesia abstained.   (Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology).   10 December 2005   "Elections could tilt Latin America further to the Left", by Juan Forero. (New York Times)   Morochata, Bolivia - In perhaps the quirkiest, most colorful of the many presidential campaigns gathering momentum in Latin America, Evo Morales, the Aymara Indian leader turned congressman, arrived in this mountain hamlet on a recent day, got out of his car a mile up the road and strode in like a conquering hero.   The town"s fathers honored him Bolivian-style, placing a heavy wreath of potatoes, roses and green beans around his neck. Crowds of peasants amassed behind him, while a ceremonial escort of indigenous leaders led him across cobblestone streets to a field filled with thousands. There, Mr. Morales gave the kind of leftist speech that increasingly strikes a chord with Latin America"s disenchanted voters, railing against privatization, liberalized trade and other economic prescriptions backed by the United States.   "If we win, not just Evo will be president, but the Quechua and Aymara will also be in the presidency," Mr. Morales said, referring to Bolivia"s two largest Indian communities. "We are a danger for the rich people who sack our resources."   Mr. Morales, 46, a former llama herder and coca farmer who has a slight lead in the polls for the election on Dec. 18, offers what may be the most radical vision in Latin America, much to the dismay of the Bush administration.   But the sentiment extends beyond Bolivia. Starting on Dec. 11 in Chile, voters in 11 countries will participate in a series of presidential elections over the next year that could take Latin America further to the left than it already is.   Since a bombastic army colonel, Hugo Chávez , won office in Venezuela in 1998, three-quarters of South America has shifted to the left, though most countries are led by pragmatic presidents like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina.   That decisive shift has a good chance of spreading to Bolivia, Ecuador and, for the first time in recent years, north of the Panama Canal. In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas, led by Daniel Ortega, are positioning themselves to win back the presidency they lost in 1990. Farther north, in Mexico, polls show that Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a hard-charging leftist populist, may replace the business-friendly president, Vicente Fox, who is barred from another term.   Traditional, market-friendly politicians can still win in all these countries. But polls show a general leftward drift that could bring policies sharply deviating from longstanding American economic remedies like unfettered trade and privatization, better known as the Washington Consensus.   "The left is contesting in a very practical way for political power," said Jim Shultz, executive director of Democracy Center, a policy analysis group in Bolivia. "There"s a common thread that runs through Lula and Kirchner and Chávez and Evo, and the left in Chile to a certain degree, and that thread is a popular challenge to the market fundamentalism of the Washington Consensus."   The shift has not been as striking as might by preferred by leaders like Mr. Chávez, whose open antagonism toward the United States is rare. Presidents like Mr. da Silva and Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay practice the kind of fiscal restraints accepted by Wall Street.   Still, the prospects for a further turn to the left could signal a broad, popular distancing from the Bush administration, whose focus on fighting drugs and advocating for regional free trade have failed to generate much backing.   While the Bush administration may be pleased that its most trusted and important ally in Latin America, President álvaro Uribe in Colombia, will probably win re-election in May, Washington"s most fervent adversary, Mr. Chávez, is also expected to cruise to victory late next year.   And the left may mount a strong challenge in market-friendly Peru. There, a fiery nationalistic cashiered army officer, Ollanta Humala, who compares himself to Mr. Chávez, is now second in the polls to a conservative congresswoman.   No one, though, quite offers the up-by-the-bootstraps story that Mr. Morales does. He grew up poor in the frigid highlands. Four of his six siblings died young, he said. When the mining industry went bust, the family moved to Bolivia"s coca-growing heartland, where Mr. Morales made his mark as a leader of the coca farmers, who cultivate a shiny green leaf that is the main component used to make cocaine.   That made him a pariah to the United States, which has bankrolled the army"s effort to eradicate the crop. But under Mr. Morales"s leadership, the cocaleros have fought back, paralyzing the country with road blockades and playing a role in uprisings that toppled two presidents in 20 months.   Now, Mr. Morales travels Bolivia"s pockmarked mountain roads in a relentless campaign, blasting Andean music that heralds him ("We feel it, we feel it, Evo presidente," goes a standard line).   "One thing few people realize is how good a politician this man is," said Eduardo Gamarra, a professor at Florida International University in Miami. "Evo has a tremendous political structure that he"s built up over the last 20 years."   Mr. Morales vows to veer Bolivia away from liberalized trade and privatizations that have marked the country"s economy for a generation, tapping into the discontent of voters upset that market reforms did little to improve their lives.   Michael Shifter, who tracks Latin American campaigns for the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue, said, "Evo is the expression of that frustration, that resentment and the search for answers."   In interviews on the campaign trail, Mr. Morales complained that open borders had brought in cheap potatoes from Argentina. He offers a range of solutions, like loans to microbusinesses and the formation of more cooperatives. He also says his government will demand a bigger take from the foreign corporations developing Bolivia"s large natural gas reserves.   Mr. Morales seems to relish talking about the United States, noting that criticisms from American officials have helped his popularity in an increasingly nationalistic country. Mr. Morales, who is close to Mr. Chávez and has called Fidel Castro"s Cuba a model, says he will reject American-imposed economic principles and policies like the eradication of coca. "The policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, under the direction of the United States government, which concentrate capital in few hands, is not a solution," he said. "Western development is the development of death."   Such talk resonates with people like Herminio López, a leader in the hamlet of Piusilla. "We are sure he will not defraud or fool us, like all the others," he said. "Eighty percent of us are poor, and for us to have someone like him makes us proud."   Mr. Morales knows well what appeals to his supporters. Aside from an economic transformation, he promises symbolic proposals like changing the Bolivian flag to include elements of the indigenous flag of the Andes."This moment is not just for Evo Morales," Mr. Morales told the crowd here in Morochata. "It is for all of us."   18 - 11 - 2005   "An Andean Crisis of Democracy", by John Crabtree. (OpenDemocracy)   The political elites in Latin America"s southern Andes, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador, face a restless population hungry for better government and a fairer society, writes John Crabtree.   2005 has been a year of political convulsions in Latin America. The last two weeks alone have seen high-level disagreement and tumultuous protest at the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina; a continuation of the series of corruption scandals that has riven Brazil"s governing Workers Party; evidence of an intensification in Colombia"s long-running civil war; and a bitter dispute between the presidents of Mexico and Venezuela, Vicente Fox and Hugo Chávez.   One of the most politically febrile zones of the region is the southern Andes, especially Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador, where public repudiation of traditional parties and their leaders is generating new challenges to the status quo. According to the Latinobarómetro, a Latin American polling survey, dissatisfaction with existing institutions is particularly marked in these three countries..   With eight national elections due in 2006 (in addition to the polls in Honduras and Chile as well as Bolivia before the end of 2005), next year promises to be an even more politically charged period in Latin America. A long, painful search for new models and institutions that can address the deep structural inequalities of the region is continuing, against the backdrop of significant changes in the global economy. The only certainty is that there are more surprises ahead. Visit the related web page
	View more stories