NightWatch

For the Night of 8 October 2009

Burma: Update. The Junta has agreed to permit opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to speak with Western diplomats in Rangoon, the BBC reported. The diplomats are ambassadors from the United States, Australia and Britain.

Burma wants more options in its foreign relations than just dealing with India and China.

Pakistan: The Pakistan Army has rejected …conveyed its objections to …the new US aid bill for Pakistan because it infringes on Pakistani sovereignty. The Daily Times reported today:

“US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson admitted on Thursday that clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill regarding the Pakistan Army “are a big mistake”. Separately, the army has also forwarded its reservations over the bill to the Presidency. According to a private TV channel, Patterson said the US government had gone the extra mile to assure the government that the bill was not detrimental to Pakistan’s sovereignty, but conceded the draft of the bill was poorly written, adding the US would address the concerns of Pakistani politicians and military leadership. She hoped that the leadership of both countries could overcome these concerns through dialogue with military leadership, politicians and the civil society. Patterson said the bill was Pakistan-friendly and there was nothing wrong with it. Also on Thursday, the army sent a formal non-paper to the presidency, expressing its concerns over the bill, the channel reported. Sources in the presidency confirmed that it had received the non-paper and was reviewing its contents, the channel added.”

The issues will be worked out but the episode illustrates that Pakistan Army support cannot be assumed under any circumstances, especially when its objections are sound, as in this instance.

On the other hand, if the US Ambassador described to the host country that an act of Congress was a “big mistake” or said words that would result in here being quoted that way in the local press, it would seem difficult for that Ambassador to carry out her functions in the post with any credibility.

Ambassadors are not normally public critics of the branch of government that pays their salaries. So this is a confusing story, but it is all over the Pakistani press, regardless of what was actually said and the context.

Afghanistan: A large explosion rocked the center of Kabul near the Indian Embassy and the Interior Ministry, The Associated Press reported 8 October. At least 17 people, most Afghans, died. The center of the blast appeared to be just outside the Indian Embassy, three of whose guards were killed.

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said, ‘‘I believe the suicide bomb was directed at the embassy since the suicide bomber came up to the outer perimeter wall of the embassy in a car loaded with explosives.’’ Rao added that the intensity of the blast was similar to the one that occurred outside the building on 7 July 2008. (Note: press reports indicate the 7 July 2008 bombing was traced by Afghan and US investigators to the Haqqani gang and Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI.)

The Foreign Secretary said India would take ‘‘whatever measures needed to safeguard security of our personnel and our interests in Afghanistan.’’ India did not accuse Pakistan of complicity in the bombing … yet.

On National Public Radio, Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Said Jawad, affirmed that the Afghanistan government’s assessment of today’s bombing in Kabul finds that “a nation” is behind the bombing and named Pakistan.

His comment indirectly called Pakistan a state sponsor of terror. It was a good comment because of the facts the Ambassador produced which showed its similarity to the July 2008 bombing.

Ambassador Jawad said his government supported an increase in US troops to fight a counterinsurgency campaign, instead of a counter-terror campaign. However, his most poignant comments concerned the Afghan elections.

Jawad made a point that no other commentator has made. He said the debate over election fraud undermines and misses the enormous significance of the elections. Millions of Afghans, he said, braved bombs and bullets to vote, risking Taliban reprisals in cutting off fingers or ears or murder. Women and men both voted under conditions that no one in the West would tolerate.

The dispute over fraud misses the point and disrespects the bravery of those who came out, including those who stuffed ballot boxes. Imagine, Readers, Afghan political thugs thinking that elections were worth manipulating. That in itself is a form of progress.

Afghans, he indicated, think the US does not respect and minimizes the risks Afghans took just to vote. The Afghans are proud they held an election. The American official obsession with voter fraud blinds the US to the enormity of the Afghan achievement in a war zone. The people defied the Taliban and voted by the millions.

A lot more profitable attention might be paid to that fact, in this kinder gentler counterinsurgency climate, if the US had an information strategy.

Ambassador Jawad is an able and brilliant defender of Afghanistan and deserves great credit for the clarity and candor of his remarks. It takes courage and skill for anyone to tell a great power that its leaders are missing the forest for the trees, without giving offense! It was a super interview!!

Iran: Update. The second joint meeting of Iran's parliament--the Majlis--and the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad was held but without the presence of 190 members of parliament, the BBC reported 8 October. Orumiyeh MP Salman Zaker said only 100 MPs attended the meeting, adding that distinguished parliamentary figures including the speaker and vice speakers were absent.

The boycott will have little practical effect, but it is an important indicator that Ahmadi-Nejad’s government and the leadership of Supreme Leader Khamenei have the support only of a minority of elected officials.

Now, if the groups with the guns (IRGC, Basij and armed forces) can be persuaded to defect or to fight each other, a change of government would be possible.

Syria-Saudi Arabia: Update. Saudi King Abdallah met Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in Damascus, where the two leaders discussed the importance of political reconciliation in Lebanon and finding "points of convergence" between Saudi-backed party Future Movement and a Syrian-backed coalition led by Hezbollah. They agreed that the forming of a national unity government would be the cornerstone for stability and strength in Lebanon.

Israel: For the record. The BBC reported Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said there is no chance of an early solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and told people to "learn to live with it". Liberman does not lead Israeli peace negotiations, but his statement casts a pall over latest US diplomatic efforts to revive negotiations.

Lieberman said people who thought Israel and the Palestinians could reach a deal "do not understand reality and are sowing illusions….We have to be realistic - we will not be able to reach agreement on core and emotional subjects like Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees," he said. "I am going to say very clearly - there are conflicts that have not been completely solved and people have learned to live with it, like Cyprus."

Lieberman’s candor deserves credit; his judgment, not so much.

Ecuador-Colombia: Update. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said he would work with Colombia to apprehend Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels in Ecuador, El Tiempo reported 8 October. Correa said the Colombian government should point out where FARC rebels are inside Ecuador and "we will capture them." He added, "We can work together as we always have.

Colombia has made a prima facie case that FARC have operated from jungle bases in Ecuador. It is not clear that President Correa really believes the Colombian evidence, but his statement shows he does not back FARC. And that is tonight’s good news, if it holds up.

Feedback notes: Feedback on the Afghanistan comment of 7 October is polarized on this issue as sharply as on any issue presented in NightWatch.

There are several areas of disagreement. One is the whether the Taliban leadership has changed since the time it hosted bin Laden and al Qaida. Another is the nature of the relationship between the Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan, and the al Qaida leaders based in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in northwestern Pakistan. The answer to these are building blocks in a predictive analysis of what would happen were Taliban to share power in Kabul, or return to power.

As of today, one key point is that the evidence on this issue is not conclusive one way or the other, yet. Still, Readers would be justified in wondering why the Karzai government does not cry “al Qaida!” instead of “Taliban!” at every turn, if the al Qaida threat is as great as some contend.

World: For the record: A report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, an American think-tank, has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world - with 60% in Asia.

The report took three years to compile from census and other data from 232 countries and territories. It shows that 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East and North Africa. The data also shows there are more Muslims in Germany than in Lebanon, and more in Russia than in Jordan and Libya together, among other surprises.

End of NightWatch for 8 October.