The head of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan yesterday called for a revised strategy to turn around the war against the Taliban, describing the situation as serious but putting success within reach.
General Stanley McChrystal's review,compiled since he took up command in mid-June, has been widely anticipated since US President Barack Obama put a sweeping new strategy in Afghanistan at the heart of his foreign policy.
The US has for months called for new thinking in Afghanistan and the Pentagon dismissed Gen McChrystal's predecessor last May. Gen McChrystal sent his strategic assessment to the head of US Central Command General David Petraeus for comment en route to the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the military said.
"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," said Gen McChrystal in a statement.
It said his assessment seeks to implement Mr Obama's strategy "to reduce the capability and will of the insurgents,al-Qaeda and transnational extremists"as well as develop Afghan forces, improve governance and development.
Gen McChrystal is not expected to call for more troops in this review, but is ultimately expected to recommend increased troop numbers.
US military commanders in Afghanistan reportedly told the US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, this month that they did not have enough troops to do their job.
Last week, Gen McChrystal ordered the more than 100,000 Western troops under his command to change their mindset to win the fight, and focus on people, not insurgents.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Auschwitz plans go to Israel
Architectural plans for the Auschwitz death camp that were discovered in Berlin last year were given to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday for display at his country's official Holocaust memorial.
The 29 sketches of the death camp that was built in Nazi-occupied Poland date back as far as 1941, and include detailed blueprints for barracks, delousing facilities and crematoria, including gas chambers. The sketches are considered important to helping understand the genesis of the Nazi genocide.
They are initialed by the head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess.
They turned up in an apartment in Berlin in 2008; how they got there is not clear, but their authenticity has been verified by Germany's federal archive.
While they are not the only original Auschwitz blueprints that still exist -others were captured by the Soviet Red Army and brought back to Moscow they will be the first for Israel's Yad Vashem memorial, its chairman said.
"This set is a very early one, which was found here in Berlin, from the autumn of '41," Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev said.
"It brings a better understanding of the whole process, and the intention of the planners of the complex, and from this perspective it is important."
The blueprints were purchased from the unidentified finder by Germany's Axel Springer Verlag, the publisher of top-selling Bild newspaper, and put on display in the company's headquarters.
The publisher is now giving them to Yad Vashem for its permanent collection.
Mr Shalev said they will be put on display at Yad Vashem on January 27,2010, to mark the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
The 29 sketches of the death camp that was built in Nazi-occupied Poland date back as far as 1941, and include detailed blueprints for barracks, delousing facilities and crematoria, including gas chambers. The sketches are considered important to helping understand the genesis of the Nazi genocide.
They are initialed by the head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess.
They turned up in an apartment in Berlin in 2008; how they got there is not clear, but their authenticity has been verified by Germany's federal archive.
While they are not the only original Auschwitz blueprints that still exist -others were captured by the Soviet Red Army and brought back to Moscow they will be the first for Israel's Yad Vashem memorial, its chairman said.
"This set is a very early one, which was found here in Berlin, from the autumn of '41," Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev said.
"It brings a better understanding of the whole process, and the intention of the planners of the complex, and from this perspective it is important."
The blueprints were purchased from the unidentified finder by Germany's Axel Springer Verlag, the publisher of top-selling Bild newspaper, and put on display in the company's headquarters.
The publisher is now giving them to Yad Vashem for its permanent collection.
Mr Shalev said they will be put on display at Yad Vashem on January 27,2010, to mark the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
NEW US POLICY IMPORTANT FOR BURMA'S FUTURE HOPES
The visit by US Senator Jim Webb to Burma, in which he won the release of John William Yettaw, who was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment with hard labour for swimming across Inya lake to the home of Burmese democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, draws scepticism from some stakeholders in Burmese politics.
Since the administration of President Obama stated that its Burma policy is under review, those in the camp who supported the previous US sanctions policy are concerned about the direction of the prospective new policy.
The major concern is that the policy shift would change the equation between the regime and its opponents by favouring Burma's ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), and would legitimise the regime and its controversial 2010 election. As of now the election is a critical battlefield on which the fight between the SPDC and the opposition groups will be played out.
It is a fact that both engagement policies advocated by Asean, Burma's neighbours and other Asian nations, and the sanctions and isolation policy held by the US and EU have equally failed to bring any positive change in Burma. Looking for an alternative becomes a natural reality.
Previous attempts by the US to use its power via the UN Security Council have never been realised due to vetoes from China and Russia. These two countries also intervened when the US, along with the UK and France, tried to practise "Responsibility to Protect" to save the victims of Cyclone Nargis that hit Burma in May 2008, leaving 135,000 dead and over two million homeless while the Burmese regime denied immediate humanitarian aid from outside. The US must find an alternative policy so that it can exercise its power to help 55 million Burmese people.
The US is the power the SPDC despises most, but at the same time, will listen to most if it has to. Some suggest that Senator Webb's success in meeting with Senior General Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi is a result of mounting international pressure, which the regime wants to defuse following Aung San Suu Kyi's sentencing on August 11.
While the US needs to send a former president, Bill Clinton, to North Korea to secure the freedom of two Americans and to meet reclusive leader Kim Jong-il, it was politically cheaper for it to send only a senator to secure the freedom of Yettaw and meet Burma's reclusive leader. It indicates that the Burmese regime will listen to the US when it has to, even though unwillingly.
But the US cannot unilaterally exercise its power. Bringing more nations on board, along with a new policy, whilst remaining in the driving seat, would make a difference.
Some suggest the Obama administration is sending a mixed message to the regime, with the US president's recent renewal of Burma sanctions contradicting calls from some senior US officials for "affirmative engagement". Should we not see the renewal as a signal from the US that sanctions remain a possible punishment, whereas the doorway has been opened for engagement? Should it be understood as a "carrot and stick" policy which offers engagement in the first place and punishment later? This is not a new approach in dealing with Burma. Australia, for example, in the early 1990s advocated a similar concept using the name of "Benchmark Policy".
The division among the international players has allowed the regime's survival over the last two decades. Once the US develops a new policy, it must be able to bring more nations on board from both camps - those advocating engagement and those advocating sanctions and isolation.
The carrot and stick approach, offering engagement and sanctions, with proper use of both in a balanced manner, could be a bridge to bring both camps closer. It means that the new US policy must be multilateral, not unilateral.
Some Asian countries, including Asean members, India and China, may have prioritised their own interests when engaging with the regime. They are also major trading partners of the regime, and some supply weapons. A few may even wish that Burma never becomes a democracy. Some democracies, namely India and Japan, compromise universally-accepted values that are in practise in their countries, just for national interest - by giving in too much to the SPDC. This shows that countries in the engagement camp have less interest in changing Burma's status quo. Unlike these nations, the US is freer from any conflict of interest when it comes to Burma policy, whether using sanctions or engagement. It mainly sticks to the idea of sympathy for 55 million Burmese suffering under repressive military rulers for half a century.
Its democratic structure at home is unlikely to allow the US to compromise its values of human rights, freedom, justice, multi-party democracy and market economy when it comes to Burma policy. Planting such universally-accepted values in Burma can only be good.
Sympathy for the Burmese people, within the White House, State Department and both houses of Congress, as well as strong Burma advocacy groups in the country, could reduce the risk of a new US policy becoming another failed engagement.
The regime is not afraid to insult any international organisation, including Asean, the EU and UN. A recent example of how the regime blatantly fouled the international community was during UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's trip to Burma in early July. Most people assumed that pre-arrangements for his visit included securing the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, or at least meeting with her. The regime easily snubbed the secretary-general by denying him a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi.
But the regime knows that it is difficult for it to insult the US the same way. Of course, it is up to the US to determine whether it will allow itself to be insulted.
Khin Maung Win is deputy executive director of the Democratic Voice of Burma, a Burmese radio and TV station based in Oslo. The views expressed in the article are his own.
Since the administration of President Obama stated that its Burma policy is under review, those in the camp who supported the previous US sanctions policy are concerned about the direction of the prospective new policy.
The major concern is that the policy shift would change the equation between the regime and its opponents by favouring Burma's ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), and would legitimise the regime and its controversial 2010 election. As of now the election is a critical battlefield on which the fight between the SPDC and the opposition groups will be played out.
It is a fact that both engagement policies advocated by Asean, Burma's neighbours and other Asian nations, and the sanctions and isolation policy held by the US and EU have equally failed to bring any positive change in Burma. Looking for an alternative becomes a natural reality.
Previous attempts by the US to use its power via the UN Security Council have never been realised due to vetoes from China and Russia. These two countries also intervened when the US, along with the UK and France, tried to practise "Responsibility to Protect" to save the victims of Cyclone Nargis that hit Burma in May 2008, leaving 135,000 dead and over two million homeless while the Burmese regime denied immediate humanitarian aid from outside. The US must find an alternative policy so that it can exercise its power to help 55 million Burmese people.
The US is the power the SPDC despises most, but at the same time, will listen to most if it has to. Some suggest that Senator Webb's success in meeting with Senior General Than Shwe and Aung San Suu Kyi is a result of mounting international pressure, which the regime wants to defuse following Aung San Suu Kyi's sentencing on August 11.
While the US needs to send a former president, Bill Clinton, to North Korea to secure the freedom of two Americans and to meet reclusive leader Kim Jong-il, it was politically cheaper for it to send only a senator to secure the freedom of Yettaw and meet Burma's reclusive leader. It indicates that the Burmese regime will listen to the US when it has to, even though unwillingly.
But the US cannot unilaterally exercise its power. Bringing more nations on board, along with a new policy, whilst remaining in the driving seat, would make a difference.
Some suggest the Obama administration is sending a mixed message to the regime, with the US president's recent renewal of Burma sanctions contradicting calls from some senior US officials for "affirmative engagement". Should we not see the renewal as a signal from the US that sanctions remain a possible punishment, whereas the doorway has been opened for engagement? Should it be understood as a "carrot and stick" policy which offers engagement in the first place and punishment later? This is not a new approach in dealing with Burma. Australia, for example, in the early 1990s advocated a similar concept using the name of "Benchmark Policy".
The division among the international players has allowed the regime's survival over the last two decades. Once the US develops a new policy, it must be able to bring more nations on board from both camps - those advocating engagement and those advocating sanctions and isolation.
The carrot and stick approach, offering engagement and sanctions, with proper use of both in a balanced manner, could be a bridge to bring both camps closer. It means that the new US policy must be multilateral, not unilateral.
Some Asian countries, including Asean members, India and China, may have prioritised their own interests when engaging with the regime. They are also major trading partners of the regime, and some supply weapons. A few may even wish that Burma never becomes a democracy. Some democracies, namely India and Japan, compromise universally-accepted values that are in practise in their countries, just for national interest - by giving in too much to the SPDC. This shows that countries in the engagement camp have less interest in changing Burma's status quo. Unlike these nations, the US is freer from any conflict of interest when it comes to Burma policy, whether using sanctions or engagement. It mainly sticks to the idea of sympathy for 55 million Burmese suffering under repressive military rulers for half a century.
Its democratic structure at home is unlikely to allow the US to compromise its values of human rights, freedom, justice, multi-party democracy and market economy when it comes to Burma policy. Planting such universally-accepted values in Burma can only be good.
Sympathy for the Burmese people, within the White House, State Department and both houses of Congress, as well as strong Burma advocacy groups in the country, could reduce the risk of a new US policy becoming another failed engagement.
The regime is not afraid to insult any international organisation, including Asean, the EU and UN. A recent example of how the regime blatantly fouled the international community was during UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's trip to Burma in early July. Most people assumed that pre-arrangements for his visit included securing the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, or at least meeting with her. The regime easily snubbed the secretary-general by denying him a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi.
But the regime knows that it is difficult for it to insult the US the same way. Of course, it is up to the US to determine whether it will allow itself to be insulted.
Khin Maung Win is deputy executive director of the Democratic Voice of Burma, a Burmese radio and TV station based in Oslo. The views expressed in the article are his own.
Webb calls West sanctions on junta "counterproductive"
US Senator Jim Webb,back from a rare trip to Burma, called sanctions against the military regime "overwhelmingly counterproductive"and asked the opposition to consider taking part in upcoming elections.
Mr Webb, whose against-the-grain views on Burma have infuriated some activists, voiced concern that Western isolation of Burma pushed it into the arms of China,"furthering a dangerous strategic imbalance in the region".
The United States and European Union have imposed sanctions on Burma due to its refusal to recognise the last elections in 1990 and prolonged detention of the victor, democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.
"While the political motivations behind this approach are laudable, the result has been overwhelmingly counterproductive," Mr Webb wrote on Wednesday in the New York Times ."The ruling regime has become more entrenched and at the same time more isolated. The Burmese people have lost access to the outside world," said Mr Webb, who on Aug 15 became the first US official to meet the junta's reclusive leader Than Shwe.
Mr Webb said he opposed lifting sanctions due to US economic interests or "if such a decision were seen as a capitulation of our long-held position that Burma should abandon its repressive military system in favour of democratic rule.
"But it would be just as bad for us to fold our arms, turn our heads and pretend that by failing to do anything about the situation in Burma we are somehow helping to solve it," he said.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Mr Webb's views are "something we're going to be looking at" in a review of Burma policy initiated after President Barack Obama took office.
The Obama team has been sceptical about sanctions as a diplomatic tool and supports engagement with US foes,although the State Department earlier assured Suu Kyi supporters in Congress it was not looking to open trade with Burma. Mr Webb said the US could offer to help Burma carry out elections next year.
Mr Webb, whose against-the-grain views on Burma have infuriated some activists, voiced concern that Western isolation of Burma pushed it into the arms of China,"furthering a dangerous strategic imbalance in the region".
The United States and European Union have imposed sanctions on Burma due to its refusal to recognise the last elections in 1990 and prolonged detention of the victor, democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.
"While the political motivations behind this approach are laudable, the result has been overwhelmingly counterproductive," Mr Webb wrote on Wednesday in the New York Times ."The ruling regime has become more entrenched and at the same time more isolated. The Burmese people have lost access to the outside world," said Mr Webb, who on Aug 15 became the first US official to meet the junta's reclusive leader Than Shwe.
Mr Webb said he opposed lifting sanctions due to US economic interests or "if such a decision were seen as a capitulation of our long-held position that Burma should abandon its repressive military system in favour of democratic rule.
"But it would be just as bad for us to fold our arms, turn our heads and pretend that by failing to do anything about the situation in Burma we are somehow helping to solve it," he said.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Mr Webb's views are "something we're going to be looking at" in a review of Burma policy initiated after President Barack Obama took office.
The Obama team has been sceptical about sanctions as a diplomatic tool and supports engagement with US foes,although the State Department earlier assured Suu Kyi supporters in Congress it was not looking to open trade with Burma. Mr Webb said the US could offer to help Burma carry out elections next year.
Taiwanese president approves visit by Dalai Lama
Taiwan President Ma Yingjeou yesterday approved a visit next week by the Dalai Lama to the typhoon-hit island in a move analysts say could damage Taipei's efforts to improve ties with China.
"We have decided to the Dalai Lama's visit to pray for the souls of the deceased and seek blessings for the survivors of the typhoon," Ma told reporters.
The Dalai Lama, whom Beijing has accused of trying to split Tibet from China and reacts angrily to any country or territory hosting him, said last year that he wanted to visit Taiwan but Ma said then that the timing was not right.
The visit is likely to be greeted with consternation in Beijing because China regards Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force, if necessary.
The Dalai Lama is expected to see the south of the island after it was battered by a devastating typhoon two weeks ago which left 463 people dead.
"Ma risks undoing the goodwill he has built up with China by meeting the Dalai Lama," said George Tsai, a China expert at the Taipeibased Chinese Culture University.
In Beijing, China's Taiwan Affairs Office declined to comment on the visit.
"We have decided to the Dalai Lama's visit to pray for the souls of the deceased and seek blessings for the survivors of the typhoon," Ma told reporters.
The Dalai Lama, whom Beijing has accused of trying to split Tibet from China and reacts angrily to any country or territory hosting him, said last year that he wanted to visit Taiwan but Ma said then that the timing was not right.
The visit is likely to be greeted with consternation in Beijing because China regards Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force, if necessary.
The Dalai Lama is expected to see the south of the island after it was battered by a devastating typhoon two weeks ago which left 463 people dead.
"Ma risks undoing the goodwill he has built up with China by meeting the Dalai Lama," said George Tsai, a China expert at the Taipeibased Chinese Culture University.
In Beijing, China's Taiwan Affairs Office declined to comment on the visit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)