|
1 June 2007
JNV News Screen
US SEEKS CEASEFIRE FROM IRAQI INSURGENCY
US talks with Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq
have been reported for a long time.
So, for example, Time magazine reported in
2005:
'Top insurgent field commanders and negotiators
informed TIME that the rebels have told diplomats and military
officers that they support a secular democracy in Iraq but resent
the prospect of a government run by exiles who fled to Iran and
the West during Saddam's regime. The insurgents also seek a guaranteed
timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, a demand the U.S. refuses.
But there are some hints of compromise: insurgent negotiators
have told their U.S. counterparts they would accept a U.N. peacekeeping
force as the U.S. troop presence recedes. Insurgent representative
Abu Mohammed says the nationalists would even tolerate U.S. bases
on Iraqi soil. "We don't mind if the invader becomes a guest,"
he says, suggesting a situation akin to the U.S. military presence
in Germany and Japan.' (Time,
20 February 2005)
These talks seemed to have petered out -
mainly because the US refused to commit to a fixed timetable for
withdrawal.
Today the Financial Times reports that the
negotiations continue:
'The US has admitted for some time to contacts
with insurgent groups, and in some cases has reportedly reached
informal understandings whereby certain groups curtail attacks
on US troops. However, the insurgency is highly decentralized
and it is very difficult to tell whether self-declared insurgent
interlocutors actually have the power to stop attacks in any given
area, or whether an agreement is being honoured.
'A clear, public ceasefire in which a major
insurgent group suspends attacks on US and Iraqi government forces
would be major indicator that a political solution is possible.
US and Iraqi officials have been increasingly confident that such
a deal could be achieved with the more nationalist branches of
the insurgency, isolating the more radical al-Qaeda-affiliated
branches. They have been encouraged by an increasingly public
rift between al-Qaeda and more mainstream Sunni groups such as
the Islamic army of Iraq.' (FT,
1 June)
It is hard to understand their optimism if,
as seems certain, the US remains unwilling to commit to a timetable
for withdrawal.
BRITISH GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY
Here's a turn-up for the books. British diplomats
seriously considered the possibility that the Palestinian hijackers
who took over planes that were famously raided by Israeli special
forces at Entebbe in 1976 - were aided by Israel.
The story is in the Telegraph
and The Times. The Times
sums up the story in the headline: 'Diplomats suspected Entebbe
hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO'.
REED ELSEVIER VICTORY
The FT quotes Tony Blair's latest speech:
'Progress does not come from the cautious.
It isn't born of the status quo. It tends to challenge conventional
wisdom. It rarely is the product of refraining; nearly always
a consequence of sustained action against the odds. It accepts
the pain of transition. It never yields to the notion of the way
things are.' (FT, 1 June 2007)
Fitting words for the victory of anti-arms-trade
campaigners, who today forced the Reed Elsevier conglomerate to
announce that it will stop organizing arms fairs. (Guardian
online, 1 June 2007)
PETER TATCHELL
Another activist story.
A couple of days ago, The Times ran a letter
by a gay man called Mark Brown, complaining at gay rights activist
Peter Tatchell's participation in a gay rights protest in Russia.
Today there are two responses.
Here are all three letters:
***
Sir, As a gay man of 40 years, I feel that
Peter Tatchell’s representation for gay equality in Russia
this weekend was a very foolish move (report, May 29).
While I am horrified that he was attacked
in this way, what on earth did he think he would achieve by trying
to voice his opinion in another country, which clearly has its
own values? He certainly did not represent me, or my partner of
24 years.
I am furious that he thinks he can go anywhere
he likes and push the gay rights points across to others. If the
Russians want equality, they will have to fight for it themselves.
MARK BROWN London E4
****
Sir, I disagree with Mark Brown (letters,
May 30 ).
Had it been a Russian gay man who was punched,
it would have been reported locally only. The authorities would
have taken no notice. Because Peter Tatchell came from England,
the incident drew worldwide attention. This kind of action, making
the authorities realise that their regime is thought of as illiberal
outside their country as well as within, is far more likely to
bring about speedy change than protests by Russians alone.
Tatchell is a brave, effective man.
MICHAEL PLUMBE, Hastings
*
Sir, Mark Brown, being gay, seems to resent
that Peter Tatchell was in some way representing him at the Moscow
demonstration. His resentment is out of place. I applaud Peter
Tatchell’s moral and physical courage in standing up to
Russian homophobia. Not because I am gay – I am not –
but because defending human rights in one place defends them everywhere.
I rather imagine that Mr Tatchell was representing us all.
DÓNAL THOMPSON, Madrid
[Interestingly, this last letter seems to
have started as a blog-type comment left on the Times website.
See the Mark Brown letter and Donal Thompson's original comment
here, and then the Plumbe
and Thompson letters here.]
|
