G8 Summit: Camp David Declaration Addresses Major Economic, Political Challenges

The leaders of the G8 countries of eight most developed countries of the world – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States have met recently in Camp David, Maryland. They addressed major economic and political challenges faced by the world. The G8 summit in Camp David was the first major international event for the new French President Francois Hollande.

Camp David Declaration

The leaders of the summit in their Camp David Declaration recognized the importance of meeting our energy needs from a wide variety of sources ranging from traditional fuels to renewable to other clean technologies. As they reached implement their own individual energy strategies, they embraced the pursuit of an appropriate mix from all of the above in an environmentally safe, sustainable, secure, and affordable manner. They also recognized the importance of pursuing and promoting sustainable energy and low carbon policies in order to tackle the global challenge of climate change.

To facilitate the trade of energy around the world, they committed to take further steps to remove obstacles to the evolution of global energy infrastructure; to reduce barriers and refrain from discriminatory measures that impede market access; and to pursue universal access to cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy. The leaders remained committed to the principles on global energy security adopted by the G8 in St. Petersburg.

The group’s leaders papered over their deep-seated divisions on how best to tackle the Eurozone crisis, and declared that they wanted debt-stricken Greece to remain within the fold. However, they called on Athens to stick to the terms of a massive EU-International Monetary Fund (IMF) cash-for-reforms bailout, now hanging by a thread.

Incidentally, two Indian-Americans — PepsiCo chief Indra Nooyi and USAID administrator Raj Shah — were among the few special guests invited by US President

Barack Obama to a G-8 luncheon at Camp David on Saturday. They were invited to take part in a discussion with four African Presidents/PMs invited to the special luncheon. Obama said this was perhaps the first time business leaders attended a G8 summit.

Climate Change Problem

The summit leaders agreed to continue their efforts to address climate change and recognize the need for increased mitigation ambition in the period to 2020, with a view to doing their part to limit effectively the increase in global temperature below 2ºC above preindustrial levels, consistent with science. They strongly supported the outcome of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban to implement the Cancun agreements and the launch of the Durban Platform, which they welcomed as a significant breakthrough toward the adoption by 2015 of a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force applicable to all Parties, developed and developing countries alike.

The leaders agreed to continue to work together in the UNFCCC and other fora, including through the Major Economies Forum, toward a positive outcome at Doha.

Six-Point Settlement Plan

In its “Camp David Declaration”, the Group of Eight also supported six-point plan of the United Nations and Arab League Joint Special Envoy (JSE) Kofi Annan’s settlement plan for Syria and cautioned North Korea against further provocation, besides pledging steps to mitigate the economic impact of the Afghan transition and saying Greece, now battling a crippling debt crisis, should remain in the Eurozone.

The summit leaders supported the efforts of JSE Annan and look forward to seeing his evaluation, during his forthcoming report to the UN Security Council, of the prospects for beginning this political transition process in the near-term. Use of force endangering the lives of civilians must cease.  They called on the Syrian Government to grant safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to populations in need of assistance in accordance with international law. They welcomed the deployment of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria, and urge all parties, in particular the Syrian government, to fully cooperate with the mission.

The Camp David leaders strongly condemned recent terrorist attacks in Syria. They remained deeply concerned about the threat to regional peace and security and humanitarian despair caused by the crisis and remain resolved to consider further UN measures as appropriate.

Incidentally, two Indian-Americans — PepsiCo chief Indra Nooyi and USAID administrator Raj Shah — were among the few special guests invited by US President Barack Obama to a G-8 luncheon at Camp David.

Iran and North Korea’s Nuclear Programs

Piling up pressure on Iran, the leaders of the world's eight most powerful economies have asked it to swiftly address all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program and vowed to ensure that crude markets are "fully and timely" supplied despite oil embargo on Teheran.

As Iran faced sanctions, the G8 leaders said increasing disruptions in the global oil supplies "pose a substantial risk" to the world economy.

The G8 leaders remained united in our grave concern over Iran’s nuclear program. They called on Iran to comply with all of its obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions and requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors. They also call on Iran to continuously comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including its safeguards obligations.

The summit leaders also called on Iran to address without delay all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program, including questions concerning possible military dimensions.  They desired a peaceful and negotiated solution to concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, and therefore remain committed to a dual-track approach. They welcomed the resumption of talks between Iran and the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union High Representative). They called on Iran to seize the opportunity that began in Istanbul, and sustain this opening in Baghdad by engaging in detailed discussions about near-term, concrete steps that can, through a step-by-step approach based on reciprocity, lead towards a comprehensive negotiated solution which restores international confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.

As regards North Korea, the G8 leaders continued to have deep concerns about provocative actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that threaten regional stability. They remained concerned about the DPRK's nuclear program, including its uranium enrichment program.  They condemned the April 13, 2012, launch that used ballistic missile technology in direct violation of UNSC Resolution.

The Camp David leaders urged the DPRK to comply with its international obligations and abandon all nuclear and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. They called on all UN member states to join the G8 in fully implementing the UNSC resolutions in this regard.

Countering Terrorism

At the summit, G8 leaders condemned transnational organized crime and terrorism in all forms and manifestations. They pledged to enhance our cooperation to combat threats of terrorism and terrorist groups, including Al-Qaida, its affiliates and adherents, and transnational organized crime, including individuals and groups engaged in illicit drug trafficking and production. They stressed that it is critical to strengthen efforts to curb illicit trafficking in arms in the Sahel area, in particular to eliminate the Man-Portable Air Defense Systems proliferated across the region; to counter financing of terrorism, including kidnapping for ransom; and to eliminate support for terrorist organizations and criminal networks.

The G8 leaders urged states to develop necessary capacities including in governance, education, and criminal justice systems, to address, reduce and undercut terrorist and criminal threats, including "lone wolf" terrorists and violent extremism, while safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law. They underscored the central role of the United Nations and welcome the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) and efforts of the Roma-Lyon Group in countering terrorism.

Growth and Employment Opportunities

“As all the leaders agreed, growth and jobs must be our top priority. A stable, growing European economy is in everybody’s best interests — including America’s,” Obama said after the end of the summit.

“Europe is our largest economic partner. Put simply, if a company is forced to cut back in Paris or Madrid, that might mean less business for manufacturers in Pittsburgh or Milwaukee. And that might mean a tougher time for families and communities that depend on that business,” he said.

“Even as we’ve confronted our own economic challenges over the past few years, we have collaborated closely with our European allies and partners as they’ve confronted theirs,” Obama said.

The US president said he discussed with other leaders the ways for promoting growth and job creation while still carrying out reforms necessary to stabilize and strengthen their economies for the future.

Poverty Alleviation

The Camp David leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and recognized the vital role of official development assistance in poverty alleviation and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. As such, they welcomed and endorsed the Camp David Accountability Report which records the important progress that the G8 has made on food security consistent with commitments made at the L’Aquila Summit, and in meeting our commitments on global health, including the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health. They remained strongly committed to reporting transparently and consistently on the implementation of these commitments.

The next G8 Summit will be held the United Kingdom in 2013.

Instability in Syria: West Asia Crisis Continues

Russia won a promise from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on February 7 to bring an end to bloodshed in Syria, but Western and Arab nations acted to isolate Assad further after activists and rebels said his forces killed over 100 in the city of Homs. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, representing a rare ally on a trip to the Syrian capital – Damascus –other states are shunning, said Russia now wanted to resolve Syria's crisis in line with an Arab plan. Moscow and Beijing vetoed in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The Russian mediation failed to slow a rush by countries that denounced the Russian-Chinese veto three days ago to corner Syria diplomatically and cripple Assad with sanctions in hopes of toppling him and encouraging reforms to avert chaos in a region straddling major fault lines of Middle East conflict.
Earlier on February 5, Russia and China joined forces in a double veto to knock down a Western-Arab UNSC Resolution backing an Arab League plan for President Al-Assad to step aside. The other 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution, which would have said that the council "fully supports" the Arab League plan aimed at ending 11 months of bloodshed as Syria has sought to crush an anti-Assad uprising.
Both Moscow and Beijing do not agree with the Arab League’s approach, which was supported by the US and its West European allies. The opponents of the resolution wanted a consensus to be arrived at before taking it to the Security Council which was not possible. The two Asian giants fear that once they approve of the UN intervention to resolve the crisis in Syria, a sovereign nation, tomorrow the method can be used against them also. But they are not justified in going against the will of the Syrian masses. As the world has seen, dictators like Al-Assad have no regard for people’s aspirations for democracy. They can kill any number of people to perpetuate their autocratic rule. What happened in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen is before all of us to see.
At present, Russia and China both believe they were deceived into abstaining rather than using their veto. Although Moscow has sought to distance itself from the brutalities of the Assad regime, which is now using heavy weapons against protesters, the February 4 veto is a shot in the arm for Damascus. But the US approach, which has included strident calls for President Assad to go, does not open a path for an urgent political solution to the violence either. One of the problems is that the opposition to the regime is severely fragmented.
In November 2011, the Arab League has suspended Syria until President Al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining.
Killings of Innocent People
Syrian forces unleashed a barrage of mortars and artillery on the battered city of Homs, sending terrified residents fleeing into basements and killing more than 300 people in what appeared to be the bloodiest episode in the nearly 11-month-old uprising. However, the Syrian Government denied the assault. It said the reports were part of a “hysterical campaign” of incitement by armed groups against Syria.
There were signs that the bombardment in Homs, Syria's third largest city, was in response to moves by army defectors to solidify their control in several neighborhoods. There were reports that defectors set up new checkpoints in several areas, and two activists from Homs said defectors attacked a military checkpoint in the Khaldiyeh District and captured 17 soldiers. The activists spoke on condition of anonymity to protect themselves from retaliation.
Ongoing Protests
Undoubtedly, the worst news of all is that this probably means that Syria is heading down into the same kind of hell that Lebanon went through in its fifteen-year civil war (1975-90).
The Syrian protests began as a brave attempt to emulate the non-violent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. The Assad regime would kill people, of course, but if the protesters stood fast and refused to kill back, ultimately the regime’s support would just drain away. Non-violence was doubly important in the Syrian case, because if it were a violent revolution various minorities would feel gravely threatened.
However, the non-violent strategy has foundered on the rock of Syria’s sectarian and ethnic divisions. Sunni deserters from the Army started fighting back, and all the other communities took fright. Now it’s a civil war in which the regime has the heavy weapons but the Sunni Arabs have the numbers.
India’s Decision
By going along with the vetoed UNSC Resolution on Syria, India primarily expressed its disappointment with the continued prevarication by the Assad government in implementing the political package of reforms it promised late last year and over several incidents of armed assault on peaceful protesting congregations since discontent engulfed the country in 2011.
Hardeep Puri, India's permanent representative in the United Nations, read with his explanation of vote, showed that New Delhi was upset at the winding up of the Arab League's observer mission in Syria but it differed widely from the Arab League's prescriptions, reflected in the draft resolution. Unlike the Arab League and the draft resolution, India did not ask for multiparty elections in a time frame or the freedom of movement sought all over the country for a wide range of actors from AL observers to the international media and humanitarian organizations.
India has demonstrated its capacity to take a clear stand on any regional or global issue. It is not a question of going along with the US and the rest of the West. India has to play its own independent role to protect its interests in West Asia.
Need of the Hour
Syria is just as complex a society as Lebanon, although we can still hope that the war does not go on as long. And it’s entirely possible that the Assad regime, whose senior ranks are mostly drawn from the Alawite minority (only 10 percent of the population), has deliberately chosen civil war. Better that than surrender power and expose the Alawites to the vengeance they fear from all those whom they have ruled for the past 40 years.
The Western countries have only themselves to blame for alienating what could have been powerful and influential allies in this terrible and protracted crisis. Russia's unwillingness to go along with a US-led process stems, in large measure, from its anger at western conduct over Libya. The UNSC Resolution of March 2011 imposed only a no-fly zone but served, in reality, as a cover for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)'s aim of violent regime change in Syria.
The Syrian National Council (SNC) is at odds with both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the National Coordination Committee (NCC). Moreover, with the regime in Syria drawn from the 10 per cent Alawite Shia minority, Sunni extremist groups have jumped into the fray. The P-5 and Arab League, along with India, Brazil and South Africa, must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of action that can end the violence and set the stage for a Syrian-led political solution.
Country’s Brief Facts
Modern Syria gained its independence from France in 1946 but has lived through periods of political instability driven by the conflicting interests of these various groups. From 1958-61 it united with Nasser's Egypt, but an army coup restored independence before the Alawite-controlled pan-Arab Baath (Renaissance) party took control in 1963. It rules to this day.
The Baath government has seen authoritarian rule at home and a strong anti-Israeli policy abroad, particularly under former President Hafez al-Assad. In 1967 Syria lost the Golan Heights to the Israelis, while civil war in neighboring Lebanon allowed it to extend its political and military influence in the region.
Syria pulled its forces out of Lebanon in 2005, having come under intense international pressure to do so after the assassination of Lebanese former premier Rafik Hariri. A UN report implicated Syrian and pro-Syria Lebanese officials in the killing.
The government has dealt harshly with domestic opposition. Tens of thousands are reported to have been killed in the crackdown on the 1982 uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama. In 2011 security forces used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to try crush anti-government street protests inspired by the Arab Spring that toppled the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.

Arab League Suspends Syria

The Arab League has suspended Syria until President Bashar al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining. The immediate cause of the vote is the failure by Damascus to abide by its own November 2 assent to an earlier League plan to end the violence, which the United Nations estimates has caused more than 3,500 deaths since the protests began in March.
A statement, read by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani, said the Arab League decided “to suspend Syrian delegations’ activities in Arab League meetings” if it continued to stall the Arab plan and to implement “economic and political sanctions against the Syrian Government.” It also called for the withdrawal of Arab ambassadors from Damascus, but left the decision to each Arab state.
The statement warned that Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi would contact international organizations concerned with human rights, “including the United Nations,” if the bloodshed continued. It called for a meeting in Cairo with Syrian opposition groups in three days to “agree a unified vision for the coming transitional period in Syria.”
A week of deadly violence in city of Homs had overshadowed the meeting, in which Arab ministers appeared divided on what measure to take but eventually voted by majority on the final statement.
Assad’s regime agreed on November 2 to an Arab road map, which called for the release of detainees, the withdrawal of the army from urban areas and free movement for observers and the media, as well as negotiations with the opposition.
Instead, human rights groups say the regime has intensified its crackdown on dissent, especially in flashpoint Homs, killing at least 125 people in the city since signing onto the League’s deal.
Saudi Arabia, which is extremely hostile to Iranian influence in Syria and to democracy in the region, advocates encouraging Sunni Islamist forces, and this would also marginalize moderate Syrian Sunnis. This suits North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members very well. Those Western powers whose leaders, facing severe domestic problems and needing some high-profile foreign adventurism, suborned the United Nations Security Council into voting for the violent and destructive intervention against Muammar Gaddhafi know that Russia and China will rightly veto any such resolution on Syria; but now the West can look uninvolved and can expect little criticism for its silence over continuing state brutality in Bahrain and Yemen.
Growing Death Toll
The UN human rights office said that more than 3,500 people have been killed in the Syrian regime's brutal crackdown on dissent, deploring the slaughter that went on despite a peace plan. The brutal crackdown on the dissent in Syria has so far claimed the lives of more than 3,500 Syrians.
More than 60 people are reported to have been killed by military and security forces since Syria signed the peace plan sponsored by the league of Arab states, including at least 19 on Eid al-Adha.
The Arab roadmap calls for an end to violence, the release of those detained, the withdrawal of the army from urban areas and free movement for observers and the media, as well as talks between the regime and opposition.
EU Extends Sanctions
European Union (EU) governments agreed have to extend sanctions against Syria to 18 more individuals associated with its violent crackdown on dissent, but signaled that Western military action against the government was unlikely for now.
EU foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, also sought to increase economic pressure on President Bashar al-Assad by approving plans to stop Syria accessing funds from EU’s European Investment Bank (EIB).
The EU has already placed sanctions on 56 Syrians and 19 organizations in its effort to get Assad to halt his bloody crackdown on the eight-month uprising, and has banned the import into the EU of Syrian crude oil.
EU leaders warned last month that Syria could face new sanctions if there was no halt to the violence, in which the United Nations says more than 3,500 protesters have died. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said there was a good case for further extending EU measures, which from 15 November will affect 74 individuals and 19 firms and entities.
Syria’s Reaction
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that the government in Damascus will not budge despite its suspension from the Arab League, which he warned was a “dangerous step.” Muallem’s comments come after the Arab League announced a fresh meeting on Syria and as global pressure, including a threat of new sanctions, intensified on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime over its lethal crackdown on protests. “The decision of the Arab League to suspend Syria... represents a dangerous step,” Muallem added.
The foreign minister said: “Today there is a crisis in Syria which pays the price of its strong positions. Syria will not budge and will emerge stronger... And plots against Syria will fail,” said the minister. Muallem said Syria’s government was not concerned about the likelihood of foreign military intervention in the country, due to the opposition of China and Russia. He added: “Syria is not Libya. The Libyan scenario will not be repeated; what is happening in Syria is different from what happened in Libya and the Syrian people should not worry.”

Obama's Call To Back to 1967 Frontier Only Solution to Middle-East Crisis

US President Barack Obama has called on Israel to go back to 1967 frontier. He made this call while delivering a speech on the Middle East situation at the US State Department in Washington on 19 May. Although Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed Obama's call, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outright turned down it. On the very next day, Israeli Prime Minister rushed to Washington to have talks with Obama on this issue. Obama told him, 'It is essential to demarcate the Palestine-Israel boundary on the basis of the 1967 frontier. In that case security of both the states would be ensured.' Laying highest importance on the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, Obama said: 'Like other independent states they have also right to have a sovereign homeland. All states should have its defense forces to protect their sovereignty.
Certainly, Israel has capability to protect its sovereignty by combating any external aggression or attacks'. President Obama observed that sustainable Palestine and secure Israel could be ensured if they can settle their territorial boundary through mutual negotiations and consensus. Obama reiterated that the US firmly believes Palestine-Israel boundary dispute could be solved through mutual discussions and negotiations. In this connection Obama straightway told Netanyahu that he (Israeli prime minister) has no capability to sign a peace accord with Palestine.
Imaginary, Emotional Approaches
Obama's apprehension that hardliner Netanyahu is not in favor of Middle-East peace had proved to be true on the very next day. Immediately after holding two-hour meeting with Obama, Netanyahu declared that Israel would not make any compromise with its territorial boundary with Palestine that Tel Aviv established through 1967 war. In addition to rejecting Obama's call, Netanyahu did not even hesitate to tell that peace in the Middle East could not be established through any fake, imaginary or emotional approaches. Netanyahu had shown the audacity to brand the very objective, realistic and acceptable approaches of Obama as something fake or emotional. We feel shame when we hear words of peace from the mouth of this racial, warmonger and extreme hardliner Zionist leader Binyamin Netanyahu. With the extreme patronization and provocation of the United States, Israel has become so much desperate and arrogant that it does not hesitate to throw away the very proposal of the US President. This peculiar and abnormal state -- Israel had come into being in 1948 under a joint UK-US conspiracy by illegally evicting Palestinian people from their homeland. This illegally born state under the evil design of British-USA that used the United Nations in their unholy mission is the most defamed racial state of the world. This illegally born state that is regarded as the apple of discord in the Middle East has been destroying world peace for the past 63 years. Still then the Palestinians who have been struggling for establishing their self-right and to have their own homeland finally had agreed on 'Two Nations' theory in the greater interest of peace.
To attain that objective the undisputed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had signed the peace treaty. On the basis of that agreement a self-ruled limited landmass was created for the Palestinian people that were the first step towards establishing independent and sovereign Palestine state. One and half decades have already elapsed since signing of that peace treaty by Arafat. But because of breach of trust by Israel and because of its obstinate attitude the dream of an independent state for the struggling Palestinians has still remained a far cry.
US Patronizations and Supports
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the HAMAS are two major organizations of the Palestinian people. Both of them have no objection to extend recognition to Israel on the basis of 1967 boundary. Relatively hardliner HAMAS also has no objection to recognize such a formula that was enunciated by the Arab League. But despite making repeated commitments, Israel has been betraying with the Palestinian people.
Tel Aviv has been repeatedly denying accepting the independent and sovereign entity of the State of Palestine. Rather, the warmongering leadership of Israel has been continuing its subversive policy like evicting the Palestinian people from their homes, constructing new settlements on Palestinian lands, military aggressions, economic blockades etc. In such evil design, Israel has been getting US patronizations and supports all thorough.
Destabilizing World Peace
Now time has come for the US President to deeply realize that Israel is an aggressive states -- it is an enemy of world peace. However, it is most encouraging that the world leaders have extended supports to the proposal made by US President Obama for resolving the Middle East crises.
Under such situation the United States must take strong measures to compel Israel to stop its military aggression and raising settlements on Palestinian lands. Stern actions should also be taken to force Israel to keep restrained in the interest of establishing permanent peace in the region. Finally, the Muslim World should take immediate steps to ensure independent, sovereign and safe state for Palestinian people

Whither Middle East Peace Process?

US President Barack Obama, during his maiden visit to the Middle East in May 2009, delivered an important speech in the Egyptian capital -- Cairo. In that address, Obama said that Israel would have to suspend the construction of its legal settlements on the Palestinian lands on the West Bank for the restart of Arab-Israel peace talks. Almost instantly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had rejected the proposal of the US President. The Israeli prime minister said that the building of the settlements was suspended for one year that means up to September 2009 during the tenure of President George W. Bush and after expiry of the timeframe Israel will again start the construction. President Osama had to withstand that insult silently. It had become clear that the Fatah party government of Palestine would not sit for peace talks unless Israel stopped building settlements.
Arab-Israel Conflicts
Since then, Israel has established a good number of new illegal settlement areas on the West Bank and the captured East Jerusalem and built several thousands of structures on the Palestinian lands. Rather arrogant and aggressive Netanyahu and his government blamed the Palestinians for the capture of lands. The argument of the Israeli government was the Palestinians are divided, among them the HAMAS is determined to eliminate the existence of Israel, so no peace talks are possible with them. As the United States and European Union (EU) have recognized HAMAS as terrorist so the plea of Israel is acceptable to them. In the internal politics Obama has earned the wrath of the US capitalist over his national health bill. And his popularity was nosedived.
In addition, Obama did not get enough opportunity to think over the Middle East as he lost majority in the Congress in the midterm polls. Moreover, he will have to seek votes in November 2012 to become the US President for the second term. Obama knows it very well that it will not be possible for him to win the election by annoying the 'most powerful' Israeli lobbies in the US. And as a result, he prefers keeping mum on the issue of Arab-Israel conflicts.
Unexpected Address
President Obama on 19 May gave a completely unexpected statement at the US Department of State. He had definitely an intention of revising to some extent the present anti-US policy in the Middle East. At the beginning of the so-called 'Arab autumn' process the US seemed to be against the trend. But as the development began going out of the control of the US policy Washington welcomed the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt one after another. But in other places the United States is still lagging behind the pace of developments. Washington was in a dilemma for a long time regarding the mass upsurge in Yemen and Syria. Huge criticisms were raised in the US over mysterious indifference of the Obama administration to sending of Saudi Arabian troops to quell rebellion in Bahrain.
In his State Department address, Obama made attempts to minimize those criticisms. He said: 'The US welcomes those changes that expand the scopes for self determination and opportunities- there should not be any doubt about it. For many decades we have been admitting the no change in situation of this region or the Middle East, but now we have gotten the chance of following the path through which the world could advance in the right direction.'
Obama in that address further said that the basis of the Arab-Israeli crisis would be a 'secured Israel' and on the basis of an independent Palestinian state, and the borders of the two states will be along the demarcation line that was before the 1967 war. But Obama said that some changes along the common borders here and there were possible on the basis of mutual understanding.
On 2 May, the US commandoes swooped on a residence at Abbottabad in Pakistan and killed Usama Bin Ladin. Since then popularity of Obama has jumped high repeatedly. The US President might have thought that he would implement his 2009 Cairo address riding on this popularity. Besides, he might have realized that Israel has been using the peace talks with the Palestinian as a technique of killing time and the crisis will no be solved this way. Now he is thinking over the 2002 Saudi proposal. In that Saudi proposal it was stipulated that the borders of Palestine and Israel will be fixed along the demarcation line of 1967 and all Arab states will recognize Israel simultaneously.
Bad Tempered Dialogue
The US foreign policy is not determined in Washington. This is determined in Israel and the Israelis secure this control by dint of the strength of the Israeli lobbies in the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was scheduled meet the US President in Washington on the following day of the speech of Obama. Prior to his departure for Washington, Netanyahu announced that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to Israel. He said that the ground realities have under gone many changes (because of illegal Israeli settlements) since 1967 and those changes cannot be ruled out. In other words, he said that the Jews (those came from Europe) had the right to build settlements in the areas where they have settlements during the Bible era that means in entire Palestine.
The Jewish people in the United States could hardly be one-thirtieth of the total population. But in pursuance of Zionist conspiracy, they have taken control of the US politics, economy, and media. Of them, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most powerful group. It being said that no bill in the US Congress could be passed without approval from the AIPAC. Obama might have thought that he will be able to create influence by addressing the AIPAC conference. The AIPAC conference silently heard the speech of Obama. But when the US President referred to the 1967 borderline they raised voice in unison to condemn him. To pacify the anger, President Obama was compelled to announce that the United States will oppose the Arab proposal in the UN General Assembly in September 2011 for giving recognition to the Palestinian state.
Netanyahu also addressed the AIPAC conference. In his address, the Israeli Prime Minister said that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to his country for security reasons. He had again referred to the Jewish settlements in the Bibal area. And it is needless to mention that the address of Netanyahu was welcome amid repeated clapping from the audience. Netanyahu has again demanded that as a condition for establishing peace Israel must have to be recognized as a Jewish state. His proposal means forfeiting the birth right of the Palestinians, expelled from Israel, in returning to their homeland, which the United Nations accepted for many times. The proposal will give Israel the liberty of expelling nearly 2 million Palestinian from that country. The Palestinian will accept the proposal.
On 24 May, Netanyahu was more cordially greeted in the joint session of the two houses of the US Congress than the AIPAC conference. During his address to the House, both the Republican and Democrat members of the Congress gave him standing ovation 18 times. By this time, Obama and Netanyahu held face to face meeting in the White House. According to available information, their discussions were exciting and bad tempered.
Split in Western Alliance
However, Obama was given rousing receptions during his visit to Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. He earned the rare distinction of addressing the joint session of the British Parliament in Westminster Hall. Before him no US President was fortunate to address the joint session of the British Parliament. In his address, Obama traditionally raised the Palestinian issue and said: 'We (US and Europe) are united for cause a secured Israel and an Independent Palestinian state.
But Obama knows it better that the Europe is now not united with the United States on the Palestinian issue. Virtually Europe is getting more intolerant with each passing. So long the Arab-Israel issue has been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It was true that a quartet was formed on the issue comprising the United Nations, EU, Russia, and the United States. But that quartet was absolutely ineffective. Former US President George W. Bush appointed his cohort in misdeeds -- Tony Blair -- as the representative of that quartet. It seemed from the statements of Tony Blair that protecting interest of Israel was his prime concern. He is going to Jerusalem off and on and Israelis are receiving him very cordially. It being heard that Tony Blair has been benefiting for her relations with Israel.
Now the EU could have realized that the US foreign policy is determined in Tel Aviv, not Washington. And as a result, no just solution of the crisis is possible by the United States. Some of the EU countries believe the Europe now will have to take responsibility from the United States the initiatives of solving the Arab-Israel crisis. Some of the EU countries, including France, have hinted that they are ready to recognize the independence of Palestine if it is unilaterally declared by the Palestinians.
The Europe has some special advantages also. The Israeli lobbies are very active in Europe particularly in France and Germany. But they are yet to become so stronger like the AIPAC in the United States. In addition, the progress of Israeli economy still largely depends on Europe. Israel is enjoying the duty free access to Europe in exporting goods like other EU members. That means Israeli Prime Minister will find no courage to show his red eyes to the Europe the way he has been demonstrating his audacity to hackle the US President. Under the above circumstances, the people, who support an independent Palestinian state inside Israel, will be encouraged.
Recent Development
Meanwhile, a significant change has taken place in the situation of the Middle East. Israel has been successful in laying a siege to Gaza for long four years with active support from the Hosni Mubarak government of Egypt. That the Egyptian Government acting on behalf of the Israeli Administration has closed down the Rafa Crossing on the southern frontier. But a post-revolution Egypt is not ready to act as a guard of Egypt. Egypt opened the Rafa Crossing on 28 May. Most countries in the Middle East are now witnessing mass upsurge. The friends of Israel in Europe believe Israel will be more friendless if 'Arab Autumn' gets perfection. Under the above circumstances, it will be better for Israel to reach a settlement without killing time.
The Arab League, at a meeting in Doha on 22 May, has decided that despite objection from the US they will move a resolution in the UN General Assembly in September for giving recognition to an independent Palestinian state with the border of 1967. That resolution will create very complex situation for the United States. Under pressure from Israel, the United States will try to oppose the resolution. However, most countries in the world are likely to give recognition to the Palestinian state. The public opposition of so many countries will surely hamper the international dignity of the United States.
Only one option has been left for Washington to adopt. The option is supporting the Arab League resolution. If the United States fails, Washington should abstain from voting against the proposal and handover initiatives of resolving the Middle East crisis to the EU.

UN Resolution Against Libya

With the authorization of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the allied forces spearheaded by the United States, France and the United Kingdom launched their large-scale military actions against the military of Muanmmar Gaddafi's regime starting from 19 March.

Ever since the outburst of the massive demonstrations against the authoritarian rule of Gaddafi in Libya, Gaddafi has been taking actions against the dissidents with high-handed crackdown, which include attacking unarmed demonstrators using fighter jets. In the ensuing military actions against the areas controlled by the revolutionist forces, his military have shown no mercy to innocent civilians as well.

Disdainful and Bloody Massacres
Although Libya is a sovereign country, the disdainful and bloody massacres committed by Gaddafi's forces have violated the fundamental values and beliefs commonly recognized by the modern society. The UNSC passed a resolution on 17 March, which approves setting up a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizes the international community to take any necessary measure to protect the Libyan civilians and their residential areas from the threat of armed attacks. We believe that Russia and China, which always insists on the principle of non-interference, had abstained instead of vetoing the resolution this time out of the consideration that the main objective of the UNSC resolution is to protect the common people in Libya. It was also because of this reason that Singapore had made the stance to support the UNSC resolution.

The allied forces have resorted to cruise missiles and combat jets to destroy the air defense system of Gaddafi's military based on the reason that the latter has violated the ceasefire resolution of the UNSC by continuing its attacks against places controlled by the revolutionary forces such as Benghazi. The action is to stop Gaddafi's military from killing or hurting Libyan civilians in their attacks. If we examine from this perspective, the military actions of the allied forces can be considered a justifiable move.

However, it is easy to start the attacks but it is hard to bring it to an end. The UNSC resolution only agrees on setting up a no-fly zone, protecting civilians and imposing harsher sanctions on Libya such as arms embargo and asset freeze. The resolution does not authorize the allied forces to deploy their ground forces to occupy Libya. Under such circumstances, should Gaddafi's military disregard the UNSC resolution and continue their actions in wiping out the revolutionary forces, it seems that the allied forces would have no other more effective measures besides launching 'surgery-style combat' against ground targets in Libya.

If the allied forces accidentally hurt some Libyan civilians who happen to be Gaddafi's supporters, it will not only go against the spirit of the UNSC resolution; instead, such accident will will also be an issue that Gaddafi can utilize to rally pan-Arabic nationalist sentiment in the Arabic world to counter the West.

In fact, Gaddafi has begun to do so. The Arab League was the organization that proposed to set up a no-fly zone in the airspace of Libya initially. Now the secretary-general of the organization Amr Moussa has openly criticized the military actions of the allied forces. He said that 'what happen now in Libya has violated the objectives of setting up a no-fly zone. We need protection of the civilians, not bombings on more civilians.'

Disagreement Within EU
There is also disagreement within the European Union (EU). German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle defended his country's abstention in the vote on the UNSC resolution by citing the criticism of the Arab League on the military actions against Libya. He said that Germany is right to adopt a reserved stance on this issue.

It is hard for the allied forces to continue their military actions if they do not have the support from the Arab League. In addition, US President Barack Obama has earlier stated that launching military actions was not his first choice; while the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said yesterday that the United States will recede in the coming few days (he stressed repeatedly earlier that the United States would not deploy any ground forces to Libya) and will pass over the command authority to the United Kingdom and France. Judging from these signs, the United States does not want to see aggravation of the situation and has no intention to make Libya a 'second Iraq' or 'second Afghanistan' that will get the US military into a big trouble.

Future Step
Considering various factors such as the lack of adequate authorization from the UNSC, the objection of the Arab League, the absence of consensus among the EU and the reluctance of the United States to lead for long term, it seems that the allied forces' military actions against Libya are just a temporary measure. It is rather unlikely that it will develop into a long war.

The military actions over the past few days should have weakened Gaddafi's military strength to some extent. The next step should be diplomatic actions. They should attempt to persuade Gaddafi to resolve domestic conflicts in a peaceful manner as much as possible. But will there be any effect? We can only observe the subsequent development. After all this is an internal issue of Libya, eventually the Libyan people have to resolve it themselves.

OIC Foreign Ministers' Council Meeting

Expressing its concern about absence of a coordinated dialogue process regarding the resolution of Kashmir issue, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) has demanded implementation on the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council in this regard. The 37th session of the OIC Foreign Ministers' Council was important for Pakistan because the OIC members, especially the Secretary General of the organization, Prof Akmal ud Din Ehsan Oglo expressed concern about situation in Kashmir and demanded of India to immediately resolve this issue in accordance with the UN resolutions.

Approach To Disputes
Although the OIC is called as the representative organization of the Islamic countries, yet practically it could not effectively represent the Islamic countries. The organization failed to carve out a significant place and importance for it like the European Union, whose members are united at a single platform in spite of having different shades of opinion.

Unfortunately, all Islamic countries of the world are members of this organization but everyone has its own agenda. The Arab countries are still under the notion that being Arabs, they are superior as compared to other nations. There have been differences among the Arab countries about heading the organization. Many countries claim that since they are the political leaders of Arabs, and they should be approached for every issue. At times it happens that the Arab countries bring the disputes emerging in the Arab League to the OIC because of which the OIC meetings are disrupted.

Kashmir Problem
Instead of terming the Palestine problem as the problem of the entire Muslim community, they term it as the problem of Arabs only and do not like the intervention of others in it. This may be the reason that this issue could not have been resolved so far. Similarly, they do not take interest in the Kashmir issue because it is not the problem of the Arab countries. If the OIC fails to resolve the problems of the Islamic countries, the Islamic countries will be justified in asking the question as to what is the objective of the organization. If all the Islamic countries get united, and decide that they will have resolved their problems, both the problems can be resolved.

The Kashmir issue is not as complicated that 57 Islamic countries cannot resolve it together. Only practical measures are required for this. The world powers have a realization that Islamic countries are not united. That is the reason that no importance is given to their voice.

Practical Measures
The Islamic countries can get their importance accepted by practical measures. If all the Islamic countries, particularly the Arab countries, decide that they would prefer Pakistan over India, and coordinate with Pakistan instead of India in case of trade and manpower, then India will become willing within a few days to resolve this issue. Both the countries have fought three wars on Kashmir issue.

If any war breaks out in future, it will be, God forbid, a nuclear war and the entire world will be affected by it. That is why the statement of Akmal ud Din Ehsan Oglo is correct that resolution of Kashmir issue is important for the world peace.

Need For Change in Egypt

Renowned nuclear expert and former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammad El Baradi has announced to take part in the politics of Egypt. He was accorded a warm welcome, last Friday, when he reached Cairo, after getting relieved from IAEA. The people raised slogans of democratic change in Egypt.

It is cleared here that, like many other Muslim countries, Egypt too has so called democracy, but after the assassination of President Anwar-us-Sadaat, in October 1981, Hosni Mubarak became the president of Egypt and is still holding that position. Following the footsteps of his successor, he is happy to maintain cordial relations with USA and diplomatic relations with Israel.

The Egyptian people want a change in this policy as well as that of their President, but their "hard-line democratic system" imposed by Jamal Abdul Nassir in the country, doesn't allow any change in the country at the moment.

Pro-Islam Movement
The Egyptian people are sensing the possibilities of change, in the form of El Baradi, which are feeble at the moment, but may gain strength in future. Last week, Mohammad El Baradi, after pronouncing his candidature for the President, met the spiritual leader of Akhwan-ul-Muslameen, the biggest pro-Islam movement of Egypt. Akhwan-ul-Muslameen has 88 out 554 seats in the Egyptian Parliament. Mohammad El Baradi started his campaign after a meeting with sheikh of Al Azhar University.

Country's Future
Fifteen political groups of Egyptian opposition have announced their support for El Baradi, including Amar Musa, chief of Akhwan-ul-Muslameen and Arab League, in spite of the fact that he had intended to take part in presidential election in 2009.

Amar Musa, while addressing the American university of Cairo, said that every body wants a change, we are concerned about the country's future, and desire for change and struggle for it, is our right. Whether El Baradi, is elected President of Egypt or not, it is important at the moment that he will bring breathe of fresh air in the presently suffocated political environment.