Obama initiates Israel/Palestine Discussion

By Sue Gloor

On Tuesday, September 22, President Obama will meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials to discuss the current inroads and future plans for the situation in the Middle East. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be representing Israel at the talks, and President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will jointly speak for Palestine.

Even though previous talks among the three powers have resulted in little headway in the conflict, and even though the recently-convened General Assembly will also address the Israel/Palestine issue this week, Obama believes that additional, separate attempts at negotiation will be beneficial.

Among the Palestinian grievances to discuss are the new settlements by Israelis in the region, such as the building of infrastructure on land that may eventually be conceded to Palestine.

Netanyahu is hesitant to commit to a course of action, saying that he can’t make concessions (like agreeing to stop the settlements) until the negotiations have started. This is why extensive talks with a third party such as the US can help bolster compromise.

Israel, on the other hand, is most preoccupied with blocking and/or halting the nuclear proliferation of Iran and North Korea, which Israel deems inappropriate and potentially harmful.

It’s not surprising that Israel feels threatened by Iran’s increasing nuclear capabilities. In fact, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak admitted that “he removes no option from the table,” alluding to the fact that Israel sees a military attack on Iran as a viable option.

Barak also pointed the US in the direction of addressing North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, since this issue is weighing on the minds of Israelis as well. Still, Barak remains adamant that Israel can protect itself should it be necessary.

This leaves the impression that Obama should prepare himself not only for a mediating roll in the talks, but also to be challenged about compromises the US can make to help the situation.

Link to Article, Sorry! (Noquel)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/americas/13venez.html?ref=americas

The "Palestinian Question": Why We should Watch This Spot

By Fae MacArthur Clark

During my very short trip to Egypt and Lebanon this summer, the first topic of discussion with regard to US - Middle East politics wasn't Iraq, it wasn't Afghanistan, it was Israel.

In the shadow of conflicts in which we are actively involved, the US public has a tendency to view US policy towards Israel as a less than defining aspect of US relations with the "Muslim World"*. However, the Israel-Palestine conflict should probably garner a little more of our attention for three reasons.

First: People in the Middle East think it is important. The 2008 Arab Public Opinion Poll [warning: this links to a download] by the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland found that 86% of Arabs (surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) considered the “Palestinian question” as one of their top three issues and 42% responded that the possibility that “continuing trouble in Iraq will divert attention from other issues such as the Palestinian question” was one of their top two biggest concerns as to the consequences of the Iraq war.

Public opinion in the Middle East is important to the US on the most simplistic level because of its effect upon the availability of recruits to groups like Al Qaeda. But it is also important, in a far more complex and perhaps more consequential sense, because of its general effect upon the possibility of healing the rift between the West and the Middle East and the consequences that this entails such as the forging of increased diplomatic ties and the possibility for change considered “Western” such as more diplomatic political systems and more freedom for women.

Second: The Israel-Palestine situation is changing. We have a tendency to focus upon Israel only when violence breaks out, however, despite the lack of a major Israeli (or Palestinian) offensive currently, we might do well to keep an eye on the politics and the much softer exertion of power by Israel through settlements in the occupied territories (and the debate between Israel and the Obama Whitehouse on this topic). Yes, this has been going on for decades, but with a new US president pushing Israel for change and a growing appreciation both internationally and within Israel that the whole situation is heading towards a two-state solution, these power postures may have a greater effect than their earlier counterparts.

Third: The solution to Israel-Palestine issue has the potential to be a very unstable one in a region with no need for further political instability. US policy in the region over the next few years has the opportunity to have a great affect upon the forging of this solution and upon the eventual stability of the fledgling Palestine likely to emerge from it.

The events in Israel and Palestine over the next year as well as the part the Obama administration plays in them could very well turn out to be defining points in US - Middle East relations.



*The term "Muslim World" is a thoroughly inadequate descriptor which is highly misleading as to the nature of the nations involved, however, there is a distinct lack of a better term that encompasses the region in question.

Edited to add a title.

Western Hemisphere Missile Crisis?

By Noquel A. Matos

This last Friday on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez announced it will buy short range missiles from Russia. Chavez clarified that the purpose of the missiles were only for defense against an attack or invasion and that Venezuela was not planning an attack against another country.

However, the purchase of the missiles with enough range to strike American military installations in Colombia, Curacao and the Island of Aruba are suspected to be Chavez's response to America's plan to increase its military presence in Colombia. Chavez's decision of purchasing the missiles might bring conflict with the United States. The United States might read Chavez's move of purchasing these weapons as the leader's intention of following his fellow nation leader Fidel Castro's steps. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 Fidel Castro placed Soviet Union's (Russian) missiles in its mountains in response to United States' placing of missiles in Turkey.

Alarm in Washington over President Chavez's transaction with Russia is to be expected. On this last decade, Hugo Chavez has come to replace Castro as the most outspoken anti-American leader in the Western Hemisphere. Also, Chavez has openly accused the United States of backing the military coup that temporarily removed him from government in 2002. Moreover, more than once Chavez has denounced plans of the United States to assassinate him.

If any country in the Western Hemisphere has the motive and the capability to attack the United States is Venezuela. The United States should take this seriously because if a conflict were to prevail the loses will be equally as high in both sides since Venezuela is the fourth largest supplier of American oil and Venezuela's economy depends heavily on America's petrodollars.

Obama attempts to remedy past Bush blunders

By Sue Gloor

The Obama administration has begun to make marked changes in the United States’ approach to dealing with alleged terrorists, the New York Times reports. Especially under focus is the Bagram prison near Kabul, Afghanistan, which is known for using “heavy interrogation” methods that have so far killed two detainees.

The Pentagon has come up with several changes to current detention center operating procedures, which will hopefully be more in compliance with human rights legislation:

--Assign an official to each of the 600 detainees at Bagram, who will then be responsible for aiding the detainee in pleading his case before a military-appointed review board. The official will be able to gather documents, find witnesses and review classified information, for example, to help the detainee challenge his detention.

--Close the old Bagram prison and replace it with a new, more “modern and humane” 40-acre complex.

--The U.S. military will release the identities of detainees held in some prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something it has refused to do previously.

--Pentagon officials will be more sensitive to the conditions under which detainees are held, will try to separate the extremists from the moderate militants and will determine treatment accordingly.

Some people, especially advocates from human rights groups, are unsure that the new detention standards will be enforced enough to actually affect the detainees. They believe that some of the guidelines, like acquiring enough government officials to assign each detainee his own representative, will be difficult to put into practice.

Pentagon officials are confident, though, that the proposed changes will increase the fairness and morality surrounding the detention of the suspects. Obama still wants to keep the Bagram prison open and working, since it is one of the few places that terrorism suspects captured outside of Afghanistan and Iraq can be detained.

Fall 09's Blog Gets Rolling

The fall BGIA Writing on International Affairs blog will appear in this space soon. Tune in ....

British Press Uncovers Financial Scandal

By Jaya Spier

In a startling announcement in England today, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin has stated that he will be stepping down next month and resigning from his position as MP. Martin is the first Speaker to quit in 300 years. The last time this happened “Sir John Trevor was found guilty by the House of a "high crime and misdemeanour" for accepting a bribe in 1695” (Birminghampost).

This announcement came after British Press discovered the recent scandal concerning many MPs expenses earlier this week. The Labour and Conservative Chiefs, Mr. Nick Brown and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin respectively, have been accumulating thousands of pounds over the year claiming the money was spent on food and other frivolous expenses. Neither one believes that they have done anything wrong. They are only two out of many who claimed similar expenses.

“The Telegraph says that Mr Brown's claims, which he made public himself a few days ago, totalled £87,708 between 2004 and 2008. This included £18,800 for food, with regular claims of £400 per month during the recess. Until recently, MPs were able to claim up to £400 a month for food without providing receipts.” (BBC)

Martin has claimed that he is stepping down to preserve unity in the government. “Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united…In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday June 21. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday June 22.” (Telegraph)

Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has also stated that no MP who has been found breaking the rules of the Commons expenses would be allowed to participate in elections for Labour Party candidate.

Soon after Mr. Martin’s announcment, Commons Leader Harriet Harman said in a written statement, "Michael Martin’s resignation today as Speaker is an act of great generosity to the House of Commons that Members of Parliament from all parties will respect.
"Michael Martin has served the House as Speaker with distinction. The House will have an opportunity to pay its own tribute to him before he leaves the Chair. As someone who has been in the House of Commons with him for over 25 years, I know that his passionate commitment to the House is beyond doubt. The House owes him a great debt of gratitude." (Timesonline)

This scandal has reached out and touched all corners of England’s population. During these hard economic times as the common mans’ lives are falling apart with the loss of jobs and homes such a betrayal is almost unbearable and the government must act competently so as not to further infuriate its fragile public.