Obama’s Afghan Plan Deserves “Fair Wind,” Says Britain’s Independent

By Lucy Jones

PRESIDENT BARACK Obama’s March 27 announcement of a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan was met with mixed reactions by European commentators.

Describing the rise of extremist forces in the region as the greatest threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world, Obama pledged an extra 4,000 U.S. personnel to train and support the Afghan army and police.

The new approach marked a break with George W. Bush’s Afghan policy, noted the BBC’s Washington correspondent, Kim Ghattas, the same day.

“There was no ‘you’re either with us or against us,’ no cowboy-like ‘we’ll smoke them out of their holes,’ just a simple, stern message to al-Qaeda that ‘we will defeat you.’” she said.

“Inevitably, there will be tensions—as U.S. Predator strikes against Pakistan continue, or as some take issue with Mr. Obama’s description of Pakistan’s border region as the ‘most dangerous place in the world,’” she continued. “But, for now, the American president seems to have infused new, positive momentum into the effort to turn the tide in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

“The directness and intellectual cogency with which Mr. Obama set out his ‘comprehensive new strategy’ for Afghanistan were refreshing,” editorialized Britain’s Independent of March 28. “This was the sort of exposition rarely heard from national leaders,” it added.

“The new U.S. policy toward Afghanistan is about setting goals that can be realized. It is about marshalling as many diverse and useful forces as can be garnered from whoever can be persuaded to supply them. It is about using armed force only against armed force, and only where this is deemed essential: in the south, and against what is now being called the ‘core’ Taliban,” the newspaper said. “His plan deserves to be given a fair wind.”

“No one can accuse the new commander-in-chief of lacking ambition,” commented the UK’s Guardian the same day. “He promised to shore up not only one thoroughly corrupt government in Afghanistan, but one thoroughly weakened one in Pakistan.”

But “the scene is set for a bloody year,” the newspaper predicted.

“This does not mean running away, again, from Afghanistan. Nor does it mean there is not a role for troops or that all should come home now,” it said. But it suggested that “a lighter and subtler footprint could achieve more than the tramp of heavy boots.”

“No one can accuse the new commander-in-chief of lacking ambition.”

“None of this will be achieved,” it warned, “without one missing ingredient—the belief of most tribesmen, Afghan and Pakistani, not just the Westernized elites sitting in the capitals, that this is their fight. The Taliban are winning not just the territory but the loyalty, subservience or acquiescence of the locals. This is more valuable than money, and it is ground that the foreigners in this conflict leave largely unchallenged.”

Britain’s Daily Telegraph of March 28 described Obama’s drawing together of policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan as “a sensible move.”

But Washington had sent out “a confusing message,” the newspaper said. “His administration’s multi-pronged plan is intended to allow Afghan security forces to take over operations when the time is right. But that day will come only when factions within Pakistani intelligence have stopped arming the Taliban, and other distant democratic milestones have been passed,” the newspaper continued.

“We are years away from the pacification of the region…so talk of an ‘exit strategy’ is premature and dangerous,” it argued, “since the Taliban may build their operations around it. We are in this for the long haul; how long, we do not know.”

In Germany, the financial daily Handelsblatt commented the same day that while every member of NATO “wants a success in Afghanistan” it is the U.S. that “has had to handle most of the military work.…Germany will not increase its number of troops in Afghanistan. Instead it wants to intensify its civilian reconstruction efforts. But that can’t be truly successful without the security that only the military can provide,” it stated.

“If Obama had any illusions whatsoever when he took office about whether his partners would abandon their increasing reserve on the issue of Afghanistan, then those have been buried by now…Germany may be willing to keep its current 3,400 troops in the country, but other countries are firmly holding to their plans to withdraw. Holland will pull out 1,700 troops by 2010, and a year later Canada’s 2,800-soldier contingent will return home,” the newspaper added. “The success or failure on the main front in the battle against radical Islam will be determined by the U.S.’s engagement there.”

Palestinian Banned From Traveling to Collect Prestigious Award

There was consternation in the Dutch press over Israel’s refusal to allow the Palestinian human rights activist Shawan Jabarin to travel to the Netherlands to receive the Geuzenpenning, an award for those who have strived for democracy.

“Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen is unhappy about the decision,” reported the Netherlands’ NRC Handelsblad on March 11, two days before the award was due to be given to Jabarin and the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. “Verhagen has lobbied his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni to reverse the travel ban,” the newspaper said.

“The Israeli secret service claims that Jabarin, the director of the Ramallah-based human rights group Al-Haq, is a danger to national security,” the newspaper explained, adding that Jabarin had denied this and appealed the travel ban. He has not been able to travel since 2006.

“The prestigious Geuzenpenning…is named after a Dutch resistance group active during World War II. Because of its history, the Palestinians perceive the prize as an acknowledgement of their resistance to Israeli occupation,” Radio Netherlands reported on March 6.

Five Reasons Cited for International Inquiry Into Israeli Operation in Gaza

“There are five reasons why we should have an international inquiry into the Israeli assault on Gaza,” editorialized Britain’s Guardian on March 24. “First, the conflict has not gone away. It could reignite at any moment. Second, the weight of evidence points not to isolated incidents, but to a new and deadly relaxation of the rules of engagement…Gaza was fought to a certain mood music. It suggested that the lives of Palestinian civilians did not matter when weighed against those of Israeli soldiers,” it said. “Third, Israel is not immune to international opinion. A narrow right-wing coalition under Mr. Netanyahu will be sensitive to criticism from Barack Obama, who has yet to reveal his cards. Fourth, what Israel does or is allowed to get away with doing affects attempts to establish the rule of international law in other conflicts. Fifth, we know what doing nothing leads to: another war, and ultimately a third intifada,” it concluded.

“Islamic MTV” Aims to Take on Arabic Pop Channels

An “Islamic MTV” station in Egypt is attempting to take on the plethora of channels broadcasting Arab pop videos, France’s Le Monde reported on March 24.

4Shbab TV belongs to Ahmed Abou Haïba, who was quoted as saying he wants to put young people back on the right track. Haïba lamented in the French daily that there are 70 Arabic music TV channels, broadcast from the four corners of the Muslim world, all of which sport saucy women in various states of undress.

On his channel, he said, there’ll be no women in any state of undress whatsoever. He added that he is aiming for the youth of Egypt, who make up 60 percent of the country’s TV audience.

With the onslaught of “hundreds of immoral channels invading their small screens,” he said, he has taken it upon himself to gently steer young Arabs back to “their culture, their identity and their values.”

ICC’s Reputation Said to Be at Stake Over Bashir Arrest Warrant

“Formally the arrest warrant issued against Omar Hassan al-Bashir is the next step in the legal process against the Sudanese president, who was indicted by the International Criminal Court prosecutor in July 2008 for war crimes and crimes against humanity,” wrote NRC Handelsblad in the Netherlands on March 13. “But in reality, the first arrest warrant against a serving head of state, issued on March 11 by the ICC in The Hague, is a political move,” it argued.

“The political consequence could be that trying Bashir is pointless and that the arrest warrant will merely feed resentment against the West,” the paper editorialized.

“The opposite argument is also valid. Bashir does not recognize international law, but the arrest warrant does increase the pressure on (and isolation of) Bashir. Accomplices and counterparts elsewhere in the world now know they too can be indicted and run the risk of being accused of crimes against humanity. So the arrest warrant can send a preventative signal,” it added.

“This does, however, demand that the case is brought to a conclusion. If this fundamental first case against a serving head of state does not reach a verdict, it will not be beneficial to the status of the ICC as the guardian of universal standards or for the international consensus that the horrific violence in Sudan must come to an end,” it concluded.

“International justice is a virtuous enterprise but not risk-free,” commented Julie Flint and Alex de Waal in Britain’s Guardian of March 6. “Sudanese people are already paying a high price for the abandonment of the diplomatic approach…We fear there is more to come: NGO expulsions, actions against U.N. staff members and, worst of all, a go-slow or reversal of commitment to elections and self-determination of southern Sudan,” the writers continued. “There will be no justice in Sudan without peace. When peace and justice clash, as they do in Sudan today, peace must prevail,” they concluded.

“Hopes that the court’s arrest warrant might suddenly transform President al-Bashir into a cooperative partner for aid agencies in Darfur, or even trigger a coup against him, are likely to prove forlorn,” said the London Times of March 5. “What matters is that the ICC stands apart from any horse trading and continues to build its case. Its time will come,” continued the newspaper. “When it does, the message for tyrants the world over must be that they cannot evade justice forever.”

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.