Meeting dark clouds

By Aima Khosa
ZoneAsia-Pk

Alternatives to combat change world leaders do not seem to want to look at

Doha talks on climate change finally came to an end after a 2 week deadlock over the extension of the Koyoto protocol. Nearly 200 delegates from various countries came to an agreement to cut greenhouse emissions in the next eight years. At the same time, US refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol, Russia had objections to it, India and China were excluded from it.

They called it a ‘modest but essential’ step forward. Any person with the faintest notion of the gravity of the situation would tell you that this is no step in any direction. President Barack Obama in his re-election speech seemed to have finally taken a stand on the growing fears of climate change. Less than a month later, not only did his administration fail to submit a decisive treaty to curb carbon emissions, but also refused to increase funding to help developing countries reduce theirs. This is not to say that the United States has not played its role in reducing its carbon emissions at all. According to the International Energy Agency, US emissions have dropped 7.7 percent since 2006 – “the largest reduction of all countries or regions.” But this was countered with China’s increase in greenhouse emissions by 9.3 percent and India’s 8.7 percent. China is the world’s biggest polluter and India ranks as number four.

Read more…

Germany, EU closely monitoring developments in Kashmir

Kashmir Watch

Toronto Dec 24: Germany supports a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue and welcomes recent initiative to revive the political dialogue between India and Pakistan, says Deputy Head of Division at German Foreign Office.

Mr. Stefan Graf, Deputy Head of Division at German Foreign Office, in a letter thanks Mr. Mushtaq A. Jeelani, Executive Director of Peace and Justice Forum (PJF), for his letter to Federal Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel and for his “comprehensive information about the situation in Kashmir.”

The letter underlines, “Germany, together with its partners in the European Union, is following very closely and with great concern the developments in Kashmir.”

He underscores: “We share the assessment that a lasting political solution can be achieved only through political negotiations and confidence building measures.” Adding: “Therefore we welcome the recent initiative to revive the political dialogue between India and Pakistan.”

The Foreign Office letter further emphasises: “Germany, which has consistently supported a sustainable political solution to the conflict in Kashmir, will continue to encourage both sides to look creatively at all potential options for a bilaterally negotiated solution to the Kashmir issue.”

“This is also very important for the stability in the region,” concludes Mr. Graf.

From Hopenhagen to Nopenhagen

Malik Amin Aslam Khan

Delegates from 193 countries and an unprecedented 119 heads of state and government turned up at Copenhagen, as did renowned eco-campaigners such as Prince Charles, Richard Branson, Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai and Al Gore. The intention was to discuss measures against climate change and support an ambitious agreement on the problem. This historic political gathering for two tumultuous weeks also drew more than 3,000 journalists. Around 40,000 visitors had to withstand frigidly cold weather for hours just to get entry passes into the Bella Centre.

Delegates and participants were greeted with banners urging for Copenhagen to be turned into “Hopenhagen.” Ultimately, though, it turned into what Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez aptly called “Nopenhagen.”

The disappointing culmination of this historic gathering was an accord of convenience between the world’s top carbon polluters who inked a document which was neither legally binding nor had any timetable or deadlines. It was, thus, no surprise that this farcical document was unable to get the endorsement of the UN system.

There will be a number of fallouts of this failure in terms of the moral authority of the global political leadership and the multilateral system for confrontation of global challenges. Already there is finger-pointing and shifting of blames, ironically, by the very countries which were part of the impotent accord. The G77-China negotiating group is already beginning to show cracks. While the dynamics of these shifts will play out in the coming months, their having been part of the Copenhagen circus, it is pertinent to draw out and put on record some some useful observations regarding the event:

Firstly, the process of drawing together such a large gathering of negotiators primarily driven by national interests was by its nature chaotic and fractious. The process should have been planned with this possibility being factored in. Such largely attended meetings are designed to technically converge within an agreeable band before being put to the political leadership and are certainly never left open to be finally hijacked by a select few. A planned effort to turn any confusion towards some degree of clarity was absent at Copenhagen.

The high-level segment proved to be an endless series of long-drawn statements and political posturing which was carried out without any real negotiations and, subsequently, the process evaded the political deal which the world was waiting for.

Secondly, the spirit of collective ownership, instead of being carefully nurtured towards agreement, was strategically sabotaged from the onset with the leaking of parallel draft texts reflecting, at best, partial consent by some of the parties. The first was informally floated at the start of the negotiations, supposedly as a discussed text between 42 select countries prior to the meeting. The second was another text which was “lurking” for release at the start of the high-level segment.

Instead of generating any convergence of opinions, these “floating” documents were severely castigated and rejected by the majority of the participating countries. In the meanwhile, they created an air of mistrust, doubt and suspicion, while laying the foundations for an irretrievable political divide.

Thirdly, the Bali Plan of Action decided in 2007 specifically called for a two-track process which included discussions for an extension of the Kyoto Protocol by the developed countries, in tandem with work on long-term cooperative actions to be undertaken with the developing countries. Two years of intellectual input and intensive negotiations had gone into creating the basic technical documents for the Copenhagen Conference.

However, from the start of the negotiations there was incessant effort by the organisers to keep the focus of negotiations on the developing-countries track while bypassing the Kyoto track, which could only receive due attention after vociferous protests in the plenary. This underhand effort to sabotage or kill the Kyoto process and lump both the tracks together did not, and could not have, worked. It only deepened the mistrust and ensured that the negotiations remained politically deadlocked.

Fourthly, the EU which had carved out an enviable and painstaking global leadership on the climate issue failed to raise the level of their ambition above the already announced emissions cut of 30 per cent from 1990 levels. The block which had collectively rescued the Kyoto process after the unceremonious US withdrawal and which had sustained the global carbon market by taking up self-regulated emissions targets, could not inspire political action at Copenhagen.

Considering the fact that the meeting was being held in a country of the European Union, the public expectation was extremely high and the political atmosphere exceptionally conducive. However, all this could not be capitalised upon. One of the reasons for the materialising of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was the selfless and unbiased leadership provided by the host country, Japan, which transcended regional politics or political groupings. At Copenhagen, such skill and statesmanship was found wanting on the part of the host country.

Finally, representing the world’s largest carbon polluting country, President Barrack Obama made all the right noises but failed to make his mark on a world stage which seemed to be tailor-made for him to take charge. Climate change was, after all, one of his rallying cries during the election. It is an issue which he had strategically placed it second in priority to global terrorism. However, all the hype surrounding his return visit to Scandinavia, just days after receiving the controversial Nobel peace prize, could not deliver any substance.

He came empty handed to Copenhagen and delivered a speech which just repeated commitments made earlier, while adding some thinly-veiled attacks to China. All of this obstructed rather than aided the global agreement process.

Looking back, while some silver linings of the accord can certainly be counted in terms of an initial entry by the US into the climate negotiations process and the sneaking admittance of China and India towards measurable emission-controls, its pitfalls remain strikingly obvious, as stated above. Most alarmingly, the minimalist agreement at Copenhagen unilaterally shirks responsibility for climate adaptation as it drastically failed to provide any comfort or support to the unwilling victims of climate change.

Instead of urgently delivering adaptation funds to the countries bearing the brunt of climate change they have been left in the lurch to cope with its dangerous consequences. Countries like Pakistan, which are the worst victims of climate injustice, will thus have to pay the price of this global indecisiveness. Climate change losses have already cost its struggling economy a whopping $3.8 billion over the past decade and this figure will only inflate as we struggle to cope with the challenge of climate adaptation without a strong and accessible global climate framework.

With such a large divide between political delivery and people’s expectations, the time may be ripe for a people’s enquiry to be held on the Copenhagen catastrophe. In the charged “March for Climate Justice” in the streets of Copenhagen, there were two placards which caught my eye. One read: “Politicians Talk – Leaders Act” and the other demanded: “Change the Politics – Not the Climate.” Copenhagen fell short on both counts.

This single-largest collection of politicians failed to generate global leadership while bickering politics evaded an agreement the world so desperately needed. For the time being, narrowly defined vested interests have certainly slammed shut the door to a viable political agreement. However, the committed social mobilisation evidenced at Copenhagen may just be opening the door for a global people’s movement to take charge of this issue.

The writer is former minister of state for environment and a member of the Core Group on Climate Change. Email: amin@ comsats.net.pk

USA’s image of intrusive power-wielder

Dr S. M. Rahman

Never has USA been targeted for its unilateral arrogance as it has been lately. Just in one day’s local newspapers (November 10, 2009) one finds a barrage of criticisms being hurled on the USA’s global policies. The Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, a NATO ally on the occasion of leading the world leaders through the Brand-burg Gate “the climax of ceremonies” marking 20 years since the Berlin war tumbled down in 1989, she said without any diplomatic finesse and rather much too bluntly: “We Europeans are used to this. We have voluntarily given up many of our powers to Brussels and to the European Union. But our American partners find it much more difficult to hand over powers to the International Monetary Fund or any other international organization.” Within the EU, she said, “Germany has become used to accepting the will of the majority, even if it does not agree but this has not yet lodged itself in the American Psyche.”

What obviously she intends conveying is that the so called champion of democracy – USA – flouts its norms, typical of Empire builders’ propensity to dominate the world. This attitudinal predisposition, shall never build a “peaceful” world. What she explicitly deemed necessary was that the world needed a “multi-polar vision than which we have become accustomed.” A change is the imperative. This is what Barak Obama very eloquently expressed in his presidential campaign, which was a major determinant of his victory, as it bore symbiotic relationship with the hopes and expectations of the people who catapulted him to the most prestigious position of presidentship of USA. Will he or will he not fulfill the ‘promise’, is the question. If the unipolarity hang over persists, the world shall look grim rather grimmer. If cooperative global paradigm prevails, a civilized and decent order is likely to usher in. The global fate hangs in balance. President Obama paid rich tributes to the people of East Germany who stood up against the oppressive regimes, on the occasion of the Berlin Wall demolition ceremony. But the reality is that USSR’s ouster from the global power made no difference. USA became as ‘oppressive’ in the post cold war, unipolar world which it inherited as was its rival, perhaps greater in magnitude.

The criticism against USA was not only made by the German Chancellor but the Russian President- Dmitry Medvedeve – very bitterly remarked that the “end of the cold war did not justify any nation’s global dominance.” Moreover he further commented: “The transition to a new multipolar world is today very important for most countries, for all the countries in Europe and the World.” One only wished if the then Soviet Union had acted on this lofty principle, before invading Afghanistan. But nevertheless, better late than never. Russia is a NATO ally of USA, but condemns it for not fulfilling the assurances given to them “at the time, the Berlin wall fell, that NATO would not expand eastward, as it since has.” The Warsaw Pact disappearance would create a different political space for Russia. On the contrary, the Russian President lamented: “NATO is still a bloc whose rockets are targeting the Russian territory.”

Another ally, the French President Nicholas Sarkovy, expressed his sentiments of dismay that “the global community still needed to live up to the promise of that euphoric night” (the might the Berlin Wall came down crashing). He very rightly said: “The fall of the Berlin Wall is an appeal to all to vanquish oppression, to knock down the walls that throughout the world still divide towns, territories, peoples.” But intoxicated with enormous military power, USA embarked upon lust-oriented policy to take control over the rich reservoirs of oil in Iraq and via Afghanistan to Central Asian Republics, where energy reservoirs in the Caspian Sea region are still untapped. Brutal aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan is expressive of how dehumanized and ruthless a so called civilized power could be in the pursuit of colonial greed to grab the wealth of the hapless countries.

But ironically the misadventure cost very dearly to USA. Its booming economy presents a frightening recession, within USA and its fall-out on a vast chunk of humanity. What is still worse that the Super Power had to lie in order to conceal its real motive and undertake a massive man-slaughter enterprise. Ultimately the divine intervention gave incredible power to the ‘powerless’. The powerful termed it “terrorism.” Trotsky had rightly observed “Terrorism is not a cause, it is a weapon.” Modern terrorist groups as per Victor Sebastyan, are threat to many lives and will continue to be so. But to our way of life? Only if we choose to make it so.”

Another violent expression of disgust was made the same day by General Tariq Majeed, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, who ridiculed the exhaustive report by a well known American journalist Seymore Hersh, on Pakistan’s so called vulnerable nuclear weapons, which could land into the hands of the extremists and terrorist groups. General Majeed very cogently rebutted the “apprehensions” (contrived): “We have operationalised a very effective nuclear security regime which incorporates very stringent custodial and access controls.” He further reiterated in unequivocal term: “there is absolutely no question of sharing or allowing any foreign individual, entity or a state any access to sensitive information about our nuclear assets. Our engagement with other countries through International Atomic Energy Agency or bilaterally is to learn more about best practices for security of such assets and are based on two clearly spelt-out red lines – non-intrusiveness and our right to pick and choose.”

Hersh became a very harsh victim of a well reputed defense analyst – Shireen Mazari, who blasted every single notion that the US journalist, a mouthpiece of the Government, had concocted to justify the bizarre idea that Pakistan’s defence of its nuclear assets was problematic in view of the rampant terrorism is a manifestation of “pre-conceived mindset.” She very incisively brought the latent design of USA in Hersh’s article to “steal the triggers” so that nuclear weapons could be rendered ineffective. He is very naïve, the ‘triggers’ if at all stolen, a wishful proposition indeed – could trigger a colossal global calamity. It is a silly reflection, how US journalism often masquerades as awful distortion of realities.

The above were deliverances of harangue by the allies of USA – Pakistan being the most allied of the allies – atleast so is the ‘illusion’. The Iranian President Ahmedinejad – a symbol of piety and extraordinary simplicity, very candidly expressed his disdain for capitalism, which he held responsible for the global crisis: “The present economic crisis is due to the capitalist system. The world needs radical change.” This he said on the occasion of one day economic summit of the OIC. More specifically he said, “The world system based on usury has collapsed proving it failure. We have to draw up programmes based on Islamic Thinkers. That way we can guide the people to happiness, security, justice and honesty.” Capitalism was the thesis, against which Communism reacted as it was exploitative order. This was anti-thesis. Islam is the synthesis as it combines the good of both the ideologies.

In nutshell, USA’s military might has been dwarfed by the rag-tag Afghan freedom fighters and its economic model is under great stress. The hegemonic arrogance of USA cannot linger any further. It needs renunciation of the desire to dominate over the world particularly Eurasia, of which Afpak policy is a crude reflection. Engagement with impoverished nations and respect for diversity are the imperatives

Dr S M Rahman is Secretary General FRIENDS that’s headed by General Mirza Aslam Beg.

Analysis: Turkey gets tough on Israel

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

ISTANBUL – Turkey’s decision to scrap a military exercise involving Israel has sparked concerns in Israel about threats to its close military and economic ties with a key Muslim nation and a NATO member not always willing to follow the Western line.

The weekend move by Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government comes at a time that the country is seeking to expand its influence in the Mideast and Europe. It is also the latest reflection of widespread anger – especially in Muslim countries – over the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in last winter’s Gaza conflict.

It could have broad relevance because of Turkey’s growing regional clout, and strategic position as a nation of more than 70 million that borders Iraq and Iran and is embroiled in a sputtering effort to join the European Union.

“Turkey is trying to reposition itself in the world,” Carina O’Reilly, Europe analyst for London-based Jane’s Country Risk, said Monday. “It’s trying to establish itself as a power in its own right.”

In Turkey, analysts see a complex situation with a government deeply rooted in Islam trying to balance an emerging role as a voice for Muslims with a continuing alliance with the West.

Turkey’s approach to Israel reflects a “double-faced policy” that began when Erdogan scolded the Israeli president over Gaza casualties at an international forum in Switzerland, said Huseyin Bagci, professor of international relations at Middle East Technical University.

“The Turkish government, since the Davos incident, (tried) to become the consciousness of the Middle East,” Bagci said. Behind the scenes, though, ties with Israel are largely “business as usual,” he said.

The furor began Sunday, when Israeli defense officials said Ankara had called off the international stage of the Anatolian Eagle drills, which were to have included the U.S. and NATO, because it opposed Israel’s participation. The U.S. and NATO have not commented on why the exercise was scrapped.

Turkey itself insisted the reason it “postponed” the exercise to have been held this week in the Turkish city of Konya was not political, saying only that it was the result of talks with participant countries. It urged Israel to exert “good sense in its approach and statements.”

However, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu linked the exercise’s cancellation to the Gaza war in an interview with CNN on Sunday. Asked why Israel was excluded, he said: “We hope that the situation in Gaza will be improved, that the situation will be back to the diplomatic track. And that will create a new atmosphere in Turkish-Israeli relations as well.”

Israel’s good ties with Turkey – a mostly Muslim nation – have been a boost for Israel over the years, easing its isolation in the region at a time of tension between the Jewish state and much of the Muslim world. Israeli tourists flocked to Turkey and Ankara benefited from a strong defense alliance with Israel’s powerful, high-tech military.

But these ties – always brittle – have started to fray since Israel’s Gaza war in January, when the deaths of Palestinian civilians outraged opinion worldwide. Use of Konya as a location for the exercise was sensitive: during the war, pro-Islamic media in Turkey published stories alleging Israeli pilots who bombed Gaza targets had been trained in exercises there.

Some Israeli commentators have raised concerns that the cancellation of the exercise is part of a gradual policy that will shift Turkey closer to fundamentalist Iran. Still, despite Turkey’s improving relationship with Iran, it covets its ties with the West and, like its allies, has deep concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities.

In the background is an increasing skepticism among Turks that their country, a secular state where tradition is nonetheless strong, will ever be admitted into the European Union as a full member. Talks have sputtered for several years and there is persistent opposition in key EU nations like France and Germany.

In fact, Turkey doesn’t want to side with any one camp or category, given its complex identity: a Muslim country with a secular political system, a deeply nationalist place with a rich imperial history that is still insecure and crafting its place in the world.

These traits shape its dispute with Israel, and drive its campaign to become a regional heavyweight with a web of intricate, overlapping alliances, from NATO to Europe, the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans. It seeks reconciliation with Armenia after a century of hostility, and is trying to solve its long conflict with its own Kurdish citizens.

For decades, Turkey was a junior player in the West’s Cold War alliance, run by military generals; now it has its own voice and enough clout to spar at times with its NATO partners.

Despite harsh rhetoric, Turkish pragmatism has kept military business with Israel largely intact. Israel is involved in two major military projects – tank and fighter plane upgrades – worth more than US$1 billion in Turkey. The Turkish military has also bought Israeli drones to help fight Kurdish rebels, whose strength has waned since their heyday in the 1990s.

“Relations between Israel and Turkey are strategic and decades-old,” said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “Despite the ups and downs, Turkey continues to be a key player in our region. We shouldn’t be drawn into frenzied statements about it.”

Alon Liel, who was Israel’s No. 1 diplomat in Turkey in the 1980s, described the situation as a “crisis” and said Israel had received “very harsh signals” from an increasingly assertive government.

“Today there is a new foreign policy that doesn’t rely only on the West. They see themselves as a player in many regional circles,” he said. “All this assertiveness in the region gives Turkey a self-confidence that allows it to be tougher to us.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Christopher Torchia is the Associated Press bureau chief in Turkey.

End of America’s moment

A stunning retreat from superpower status

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

America is no longer a superpower. Led by President Obama, its retreat on the world stage has been sudden, swift and stunning. His administration is actively pursuing a foreign policy of detente and self-abnegation. Washington no longer wants – or believes it is possible – to remain the last, sole hyperpower.

“In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game,” Mr. Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. That is the future America wants.”

It also is the future the United Nations wants. For decades, Turtle Bay has been a major source of anti-Americanism. The majority of its member states are not genuine democracies. Rather, they are a grim collection of Third World tyrannies, socialist dictatorships and quasi-kleptocracies. They care little for human rights, democracy and peace.

The United Nations’ recent record is abysmal: the genocide in Darfur, China’s brutal repression of Tibet, Russia’s war of aggression against Georgia, Hamas’ relentless rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages, Iran’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, Saudi Arabia’s systematic persecution of Christians and Venezuela’s efforts to spread authoritarian socialism across Latin America – all this has been met with little or no action by the international body. The United Nations is useless.

Yet, the one thing it has sought to create is a multipolar system, one in which American power is contained and, eventually, rolled back. The champion of the West must be laid low.

Mr. Obama has given the United Nations what it wants: a denuded America that is voluntarily abandoning its international pre-eminence. Mr. Obama is a postmodern leftist whose goal is to transform the United States into another European Union. He does not believe in preserving our national sovereignty or distinct cultural identity. Rather, he champions social democracy; open borders; multilateralism; diplomacy; and a strong, activist United Nations. As he outlined in his speech, he seeks to subordinate America’s national interests to globalist goals such as combating climate change, ridding the world of nuclear weapons, ending poverty and achieving Middle East peace.

Mr. Obama’s approach will fail for one simple reason: It is built on fantasy. His U.N. address was a classic example of the perils of liberal utopianism. Man-made global warming is a myth; in fact, the Earth’s temperatures have been cooling during the past few years. Moreover, his cap-and-trade policies will stifle growth and job creation – as they have all across Europe. They are a recipe for economic stagnation.

Serious nations – China, Russia, Pakistan – will never give up their nukes. The nukes are an absolute deterrent against any invasion from a rival power. The call for worldwide nuclear disarmament is more than a naive dream. It reveals a profound lack of understanding of great-power politics.

Mr. Obama is not a political Messiah. He cannot part the waters or eradicate world poverty and disease. He is striving to achieve something that has never been done in history – anywhere. This is because the natural state of humanity is poverty; it has been with us since the beginning of time. For most of the world, it has been the predominant condition. Hence, it is not poverty that needs to be understood, but the creation of wealth.

The unique achievement of the West has been to erect a capitalist system based on the rule of law and private property rights that has lifted hundreds of millions into prosperity. Unless other nations are willing to adopt free-market economics, they are doomed to perpetual misery. Billions in foreign aid will not change this fundamental reality and results only in squandering precious taxpayer dollars.

Moreover, establishing an independent Palestine will not foster regional security. The withdrawal of Israel in 2005 from the Gaza Strip did not lead to a peaceful embryonic Palestinian state; rather, it led to the creation of Hamastan. Hamas is the most potent force in Palestinian society. Its radical brand of Islamic fundamentalism – with its call for the destruction of Israel, the glories of jihad and the defeat of America – are openly embraced by most Palestinians. Carving out a separate Palestinian homeland, alongside Israel, will only sow the seeds of future conflict: It is a stake aimed at the heart of the Jewish state – one that will enable Hamas, as well as other Islamist terrorists, to deliver the final death blow to the “Zionist entity.”

Mr. Obama is wrong. Power is – and always will be – a zero-sum game. If the United States is weakened, then Russia and China, along with North Korea, Iran and other rogue states eagerly fill the vacuum.

In almost every corner of the globe, American strength and prestige are dwindling. The scrapping of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic means America is abandoning Eastern Europe to Russia’s sphere of influence. The premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq is leading to a U.S. defeat. The bullying of Israel is demoralizing our staunchest ally in the Middle East. Iran is on the verge of acquiring the bomb. Communist China is buying up our soaring national debt; we are slowly becoming Beijing’s economic vassal. North Korea remains defiant. Japan is turning away from Washington. Latin America seethes with Bolivarian revolution. In short, America’s enemies are being emboldened while our friends are being betrayed.

Mr. Obama’s speech was well-received at the United Nations because it confirmed the end of the American moment. The post-1945 U.S.-led world order, which represented the greatest advance of human freedom in history, is over. Mr. Obama believes it is his crowning glory. Rather, it is his shame.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The U.S.-Iranian Triangle

By ROGER COHEN

NEW YORK – France and Germany fought three wars in 70 years before the bright idea dawned of enfolding their problem into something larger: the European Union. The United States and Iran have not gone to war but have a relationship of psychotic mistrust. The answer can only be the same: Broaden the context.

The revelation that Iran has built a second uranium enrichment plant in secrecy did not change the nuclear equation if that’s measured by the country’s ability to produce a bomb. No uranium has entered the facility. Iran’s eventual capacity to produce weapons-grade fissile material, let alone deliver it, is unaffected.

What has changed is the psychology of the Iranian nuclear program. Mistrust, already deep, is now fathomless.

With an enrichment facility at Natanz able to accommodate 54,000 centrifuges (just over 8,000 are installed), and its single nuclear power plant still in stop-go mode, there do not appear to be 54,000 reasons for Iran to burrow into a mountain near the holy city of Qum to install 3,000 more.

Tehran wants a military nuclear option even if it’s nervous – and hesitant – about the reality.

The Qum-nuclear twinning reveals the Iranian mindset: The enrichment program has attained sacred status as a symbol of Iranian independence – comparable to oil’s nationalization in the 1950s.

(Iran will argue its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency only required it to give notification of the new facility 180 days before introducing nuclear material. Western nations will contest that. The technicalities are debatable – and irrelevant. This is about trust betrayed by Tehran.)

The effect of Natanz-Qum was to make new sanctions more likely sooner. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France spoke of imposing them in December, absent an “in-depth change.” President Obama – who likes to leave hawkishness to Europeans – avoided the “s” word but did his best resolute thing.

More significant than the words, however, were the no-shows. Iran would have sat bolt upright had Obama been flanked by the leaders of Germany, Russia and China. Those three countries are principal sources of Iran’s trade.

Chancellor Angela Merkel could not find time (although she “associated” herself with Obama.) Russia expressed “serious concern.” China mumbled about “dialogue.” This was less a line in the sand than a faint squiggle.

I’ve said this before: Sanctions won’t work. Ray Takeyh, who worked on Iran with Dennis Ross at the State Department before losing his job last month and returning to the Council on Foreign Relations, told me that “sanctions are the feel-good option.”

Yes, it feels good to do something, but it doesn’t necessarily help. In this case, sanctions won’t for four reasons.

One: Iran is inured to sanctions after years of living with them and has in Dubai a sure-fire conduit for goods at a manageable surtax. Two: Russia and China will never pay more than lip-service to sanctions. Three: You don’t bring down a quasi-holy symbol – nuclear power – by cutting off gasoline sales. Four: sanctions feed the persecution complex on which the Iranian regime thrives.

A senior German Foreign Ministry official last week told an American Council on Germany delegation: “The efficiency of sanctions is not really discussed because if you do, you are left with only two options – a military strike or living with a nuclear Iran – and nobody wants to go there. So the answer is: Let’s impose further sanctions! It’s a dishonest debate.”

Dishonesty is a staple of Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran has dissembled. Israel, which introduced nuclear ambiguity in the region, has – repetitively – predicted an Iranian bomb is just a few years away since the early 1990s. It still is some years off in the view of U.S. intelligence.

The choice is indeed between a military strike and living with a nuclear Iran. But what is a “nuclear Iran?” Is it an Iran that’s nuclear-armed – a very dangerous development – or an Iran with an I.A.E.A,-monitored enrichment facility?

I believe monitored enrichment on Iranian soil in the name of what Obama called Iran’s “right to peaceful nuclear power” remains a possible basis for an agreement that blocks weaponization. Zero enrichment is by now a non-starter.

For fruitless sanctions to be avoided, the mantra of William Burns, the U.S. under secretary for political affairs who will attend multilateral talks with Iran starting Thursday, must be: “Widen the canvas.”

The Iranian regime is weak. Its disarray was again evident last week; it actually feels threatened by George Soros. Significant factions now view an American breakthrough as needed. They have a favorable view of Burns.

Burns must seek to open a parallel bilateral U.S.-Iran negotiation covering at least these areas: Afghanistan and Iraq (where interests often converge); Hezbollah and Hamas (where they do not); human rights; blocked Iranian assets; diplomatic relations; regional security arrangements; drugs; the fight against Al Qaeda; visas and travel.

Isolated, nuclear negotiations will fail. Integrated, they may not. Iran’s sense of humiliation is rooted in its America complex; its nuclear program is above all about the restoration of pride. Settle the complex to contain the program. Triangulate. Think broad. Think E.U., not Versailles.

Afghanistan’s Sham Vote

By JEAN MacKENZIE

The dust had barely settled on the Afghan elections before the U.S. government, the United Nations and the European Union were hailing them as a success, commending voters for their heroism and election workers for their relative efficiency.

This would be laughable if it were not such a great shame. The elections were severely marred by violence and widespread fraud, and the results are unlikely to placate a population already frustrated by eight years of mismanagement and corruption.

The haste with which U.N. Special Representative Kai Eide held a press conference to say that Aug. 20 was “a good day for Afghanistan” merely served to underscore the central, if unappetizing, truth about the Afghan poll: It was never meant for the Afghans.

Instead, it was intended to convince voters in New York, London, Paris and Rome that their soldiers and their governments have not been wasting blood and treasure in their unfocused and ill-designed attempts to bring stability to a small, war-torn country in South Asia.

If last Thursday was, indeed, a “good day,” one would have to wonder what a bad day looks like. There were three explosions in Kabul by 8:00 a.m., and several more during the voting period.

Reporters calling in to our news bureau from the south were dodging rockets all day – we could hear explosions in the background as they filed their stories. By day’s end 14 rockets had fallen on Helmand Province, 17 on Kandahar.

At least 30 people died, and possibly many more. How many we do not know exactly, since the Afghan government imposed a news blackout on reporting violence during the elections.

Turnout was minimal. Even in Kabul, polling stations were half empty. During parliamentary elections in 2005, barely 36 percent of registered voters in the capital went to the polls. What I saw last Thursday fell far below even that modest threshold. Nevertheless, the Independent Election Commission is claiming the turnout was between 40 and 50 percent.

The figure is merely notional. For one thing, in a country where there are no voter rolls, there are not even approximate figures for how many voters there actually are. The I.E.C. can say with confidence that there have been about 17 million voter registration cards issued in Afghanistan since 2004. But many voters have multiple cards, or have lost their old ones and acquired replacements.

Media sources claim that 7 million people voted last Thursday. What they actually mean is that 7 million ballots were cast. This is far from the same thing. Voting requires merely the number of a voter registration card. There are no signatures, no thumbprints. Tribal leaders (who in many cases were administering polling stations) have been collecting and copying voter registration cards for weeks, telling villagers that it was necessary in order to register them for material assistance.

All that was needed on election day was a low voter turnout. If by day’s end, for example, 100 people had voted, but there were actually 500 registered cards in a district, the polling center administrator could cast up to 400 ballots for the candidate of his choice.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on what is, essentially, a charade. But that is not the real tragedy of these elections. What the international community has done is demonstrate to Afghans that democracy is a sham. Trust in these elections has been very low among Afghans from the outset.

President Hamid Karzai will most likely receive more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round, leaving the international community in a bit of a quandary. “We cannot just let him walk away with it,” fumed one foreign diplomat.

But what choice is there? For weeks the E.U., the U.S. Embassy and other international players have been predicting that the vote will go to a second round. The only way this can happen is if the Electoral Complaints Commission disallows enough votes to bring Mr. Karzai under 50 percent.

Then there will be a runoff, most likely between Mr. Karzai and his main rival, former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, in early October. And then Mr. Karzai will win, since Mr. Abdullah is unlikely to appeal to a majority of the voters, given his mixed ethnicity and Northern Alliance background.

“That will look more like democracy, won’t it?” said one international observer.

Over the next three weeks or so, the Electoral Complaints Commission will vet complaints and make recommendations. Only then will we know what happens in Act Two.

“No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there,” President Barack Obama said.

He was not discussing Afghanistan, of course: He was speaking to the Parliament of Ghana. But his words ring just as true in Kabul.

Jean MacKenzie is the director of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in Afghanistan, and the Kabul correspondent for GlobalPost.com

Deputy labels President Karzai as corrupt and incompetent

By Ben Farmer and Dean Nelson

Kabul: Afghanistan’s president and vice-president accused each other of being American stooges during angry exchanges at a cabinet meeting.

In a clash which showed how fragile the Western-backed government has become, President Hamid Karzai was labelled a corrupt incompetent by his own understudy, Ahmad Zia Masoud.

Karzai responded by saying that Masoud was part of a US conspiracy to oust him. The infighting reflects a collapse in support for Karzai, both within the Afghan coalitions that have supported him since his election in 2004 and among his backers in Nato and the European Union.

During a visit to Kabul last week, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that Karzai’s government had to raise its game to secure continued British financial and military support.

Tempers flared after Masoud, the leader of the most powerful family in northern Afghanistan, made a speech blaming greed and corruption in the Karzai administration for hunger and poverty in the country.

He also said Karzai’s plan to delay the May election until August 20 and extend his term until then was unconstitutional.

The subsequent row lasted for 10 minutes and had to be broken up by Cabinet colleagues.

In launching such a public attack, Masoud joined a growing number of senior Afghan politicians questioning Karzai’s intention to remain in power after his term formally ends in May.

The Afghan constitution states that elections should be held by late April. However, the Karzai-appointed independent election commission has said that preparations cannot be finalised in time and the poll must be delayed for three months to allow US troop reinforcements to arrive.

Senior Western diplomats fear that the political upheaval could destabilise the country ahead of any Taliban summer offensive.

- The Telegraph Group Limited, London 2009