Time is up for United States in Iraq

TEHRAN — As the year 2021 ended on Friday, the exit of U.S. troop from Iraq will once again dominate headlines.

The date for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq was scheduled for December 31. However, no troops will be evacuated. Only the occupation forces will be renamed. The same combat troops will be assigned an "advisory" role, with no soldiers being removed. This was confirmed by Pentagon officials to The New York Times, who stated that the departure will take place primarily on paper. 

Looking back at how U.S. soldiers returned to Iraq in 2014, it is clear that there was never any intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Hassan Ali, a soldier from Kataeb Hezbollah, said on December 28 that the 31st of December will be the last day for American troops in Iraq. 

“If they don't leave voluntarily, they will leave by force. They will face the resistance factions and we will return to the year 2003. The Popular Mobilization Forces are against ISIS and against America at the same time. America is an occupier in Iraq, and we don't want occupation in our country,” he continued, according to PBS NewsHour. 

American troops targeted the headquarters, administration, medical and rocket support units.

PBS NewsHour said, “What the U.S. and the coalition forces will do is provide an enabling mission, they will provide advice, they will provide intelligence, but they will be sitting alongside Iraqis in the operation centers.”

Twenty-five hundred U.S. soldiers will remain in Iraq for that purpose, but their continued presence remains contested by groups like Kataeb Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), and other resistance factions. 

Abu Al Fadhil, a soldier from Kataeb Hezbollah who was authorized to give interviews said, “When America hits us, we consider them as an enemy, because they are targeting an Iraqi force.”

“Our responsibility is to control the Iraqi territories and the Iraqi borders, as assigned by the Iraqi government, because we are operating under the Iraqi flag,” he added. 

Noor Ahmed, another soldier from Kataeb Hezbollah said because of the American occupation, the security situation in the region has deteriorated. 

“They are not willing to let Iraq destabilize,” Ahmed said through a translator quoted by PBS NewsHour.

The Coordinating Committee of the Resistance in Iraq said in a statement on December 30 that they do not trust the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops, which must leave the country before December 31.

“The American forces do not seriously take the implementation of the Iraqi people’s demand, expressed by the Parliament which approved a decree for the total withdrawal of foreign military,” the text points out.

The note also warns that the Resistance will force this contingent to withdraw at any cost.

The Iraqi MPs voted for the end of the presence of any foreign force in the Iraqi territory in response to the assassinations of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and PMF deputy commander Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis.

According to the Shafaq news agency, Hadi al-Ameri, leader of the Fatah Alliance, said on Saturday, December 26, that withdrawing all American combat forces from Iraq is “a goal that cannot be bargained.”

He deemed the presence of American troops in Iraq under the pretense of training or advisory missions to be unacceptable, declaring, “Our sovereignty is a red line.”

“My message to U.S. military and the Iraqi government is plain,” he stated. “You must carry out what was agreed upon.”

“We will not accept any manipulation, fraud, or mission alterations,” he stressed.

“If U.S. forces stay in Iraq, they must pay the repercussions of their bad decision... We will not accept even one foreign soldier, whether at the Ain al-Assad base nor in al-Harir, neither for training nor for [giving] advice,” he noted. 

Ameri stated that if the Iraqi government requires military trainers and advisers, a contract must be drafted that specifies their “locations, numbers, and tasks.”

Major General Tahsin al-Khafaji, spokesman for the Iraqi Joint Operations Headquarters, also stated that an Iraqi security delegation would join the al-Harir base in the Erbil region in the coming days to accompany the withdrawal of U.S. personnel from the base.

He stated that the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq would be announced publicly on December 31.

However, no such statement was made at the time this story was written.

According to the U.S. coalition, the principal purpose of U.S. and coalition soldiers is to offer advisory services and enable Iraqi forces to permanently destroy Daesh.

However, the message is loud and clear. The Iraqi people do not want the U.S. forces in their soil, whether as advisor or else.

Will Biden hear this message?

TAGS

• Iran
 
• U.S.
 
• Iraq
 
• Fatah Alliance

Exit Nord Stream 2, Enter Power of Siberia 2

Pepe ESCOBAR

Military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement.

Coming straight from President Putin, it did sound like a bolt from the sky:

“We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the U.S. frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But it’s something, not just verbal assurances.”

And that’s how Russia-U.S. relations come to the definitive crunch – after an interminable series of polite red alerts coming from Moscow.

Putin once again had to specify that Russia is looking for “indivisible, equitable security” – a principle established since Helsinki in 1975 – even though he no longer sees the U.S. as a dependable “partner”, that diplomatically nicety so debased by the Empire since the end of the USSR.

The “frequently withdrawing from treaties” passage can easily be referred to as Washington in 2002 under Bush Jr. pulling out of the ABM treaty signed between the U.S. and the USSR in 1972. Or it could be referred to as the U.S. under Trump destroying the JCPOA signed with Iran and guaranteed by the UN. Precedents abound.

Putin was once again exercising the Taoist patience so characteristic of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: explaining the obvious not only to a Russian but also a global audience. The Global South may easily understand this reference; “When international law and the UN Charter interfere, they [the U.S.] declare it all obsolete and unnecessary.”

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko had been uncommonly assertive – leaving nothing for the imagination:

“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about switching over from a military or a military-technical scenario to a political process that will strengthen the security of all countries in the area of the OCSE, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. If that doesn’t work out, we signaled to them [NATO] that we will also move over to creating counter threats, but it will then be too late to ask us why we made these decisions and why we deployed these systems.”

So in the end it comes down to Europeans facing “the prospect of turning the continent into a field of military confrontation.” That will be the inevitable consequence of a NATO “decision” actually decided in Washington.

Incidentally: any possible, future “counter threats” will be coordinated between Russia and China.

Mr. Zircon is on the line, Sir

Every sentient being from Atlanticist shores to Eurasian steppes by now knows the content of the Russian draft agreements on security guarantees presented to the Americans, as detailed by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.

Key provisions include no further NATO expansion; no Ukraine admission; no NATO shenanigans in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia; Russia and NATO agreeing not to deploy intermediate and short-range missiles in areas from where they can hit each other’s territory; establishment of hotlines; and the NATO-Russia Council actively involved in resolving disputes.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs extensively reiterated that the Americans received “detailed explanations of the logic of the Russian approach”, so the ball is in Washington’s court.

Well, National Security advisor Jake Sullivan at first seemed to kick it, when he admitted, on the record, that Putin may not want to “invade” Ukraine.

Then there were rumblings that the Americans would get back to Moscow this week with their own “concrete security proposals”, after de facto writing the script for their NATO minions, invariably conveyed in spectacularly mediocre fashion by secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg.

The Ukraine narrative didn’t change an inch: “severe measures” – of an economic and financial nature – remain in the pipeline if Russia engages in “further aggression” in Ukraine.

Moscow was not fooled. Ryabkow had to specify, once again, that the Russian proposals were on a bilateral basis. Translation: we talk only to those with deciding power, not to minions. The involvement of other countries, Ryabkov said, “will deprive them of their meaning.”

From the start, NATO’s response had been predictably obvious: Russia is conducting a “substantial, unprovoked, and unjustified” military buildup along its border with Ukraine and is making “false … claims of Ukrainian and NATO provocations”.

That once again proved the point it’s a monumental waste of time to discuss with yapping chihuahuas of the Stoltenberg variety, for whom “NATO expansion will continue, whether Russia likes it or not.”

In fact, whether U.S. and NATO functionaries like it or not, what’s really happening in the realpolitk realm is Russia dictating new terms from a position of power. In a nutshell: you may learn the new game in town in a peaceful manner, civilized dialogue included, or you will learn the hard way via a dialogue with Mr. Iskandr, Mr. Kalibr, Mr. Khinzal and Mr. Zircon.

The inestimable Andrei Martyanov has extensively analysed for years now all the details of Russia’s overwhelming military dominance, hypersonic and otherwise, across the European space – as well as the dire consequences if the U.S. and NATO minions “decide that they want to continue to play dumb.”

Martyanov has also noted that Russia “understands the split with the West and is ready to take any consequences, including, already declining, shrinkage of trade and reduction of the supply of hydrocarbons to the EU.”

That’s where the whole ballet around the security guarantees intersects with the crucial Pipelineistan angle. To sum it all up: exit Nord Stream 2, enter Power of Siberia 2.

So let’s revisit why the looming energy catastrophe in the EU is not forcing anyone in Russia to lose his/her sleep.

Dancing in the Siberian night

One the top takeaways of the strategic Putin-Xi video conference last week was the immediate future of Power of Siberia 2 – which will snake in across Mongolia to deliver up to 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to China.

So it was hardly an accident that Putin received Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh in the Kremlin, the day after he talked to Xi, to discuss Power of Siberia 2. The key parameters of the pipeline have already been set, a feasibility study will be completed in early 2022, and the deal – minus last-minute pricing tune-ups – is practically clinched.

Power of Siberia 2 follows the 2,200 km long Power of Siberia 1, launched in 2019 from Eastern Siberia to northern China and the focus of a $400 billion deal struck between Gazprom and China’s CNPC. Power of Siberia 1’s full capacity will be reached in 2025, when it will be supplying 38 billion cubic meters of gas annually.

Power of Siberia 2, a much bigger operation, was planned years ago, but it was hard to find consensus on the final route. Gazprom wanted Western Siberia to Xinjiang across the Altai mountains. The Chinese wanted transit via Mongolia straight into central China. The Chinese eventually prevailed. The final route across Mongolia was decided only two months ago. Construction should begin in 2024.

This is a massive geoeconomic game-changer, totally in line with the increasingly sophisticated Russia-China strategic partnership. But it’s also supremely important geopolitically (Remember Xi: China supports Russia’s “core interests”).

The gas for Power of Siberia 2 will come from the same fields currently supplying the EU market. Whatever demented concoctions the European Commission – and the new German government – may apply on stalling the operation of Nord Stream 2, Gazprom’s main focus will be China.

It doesn’t matter for Gazprom that China as a customer in the near future will not fully replace the whole EU market. What matters is the steady business flow and the absence of infantile politicking. For China what matters is an extra, guaranteed overland supply rote boosting its strategy of “escaping from Malacca”: the possibility, in case Cold War 2.0 turns hot, that the U.S. Navy would eventually block maritime shipping of energy sources via Southeast Asia to China.

Beijing of course is all over the place when it comes to buying Russian natural gas. The Chinese have a 30% stake in Novatek’s $27 billion Yamal project and a 20% stake in the $21 billion Arctic project.

So welcome to 2022 and the new, high stakes realpolitik Great Game.

U.S. elites had been terrified of playing Russia against China because they fear this would lead Germany to ally with Russia and China – leaving the Empire of Chaos out in the cold.

And that leads to the “mystery” inside the enigma of the whole Ukrainian face: use it to force the EU away from Russian natural resources.

Russia is turning the whole show upside down. As an energy superpower, instead of an internally corroded EU dictated by NATO, Russia will be mostly focused on its Asian customers.

In parallel, military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement. Lavrov confirmed the first round of Russia-U.S. talks on security guarantees will be held in early 2022.

Are these ultimatums? Not really. Seems like Ryabkov, with notable didacticism, will have to keep explaining it over and over again: “We do not speak in the language of ultimatums with anyone. We have a responsible attitude towards our own security and the security of others. The point is not that we have issued an ultimatum, not at all, but that the seriousness of our warning must not be underestimated.”

Pepe ESCOBAR

Independent geopolitical analyst, writer and journalist

Tags:

ChinaDiplomacyEuropean UnionNATONew World OrderRussiaUnited States

Raisi says his govt seeking interaction with outside world

TEHRAN – President Ebrahim Raisi said on Friday that his government is seeking to interact with the outside world.

Raisi made the remarks in a meeting with grand Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, in the shrine city of Qom.

Since coming to power in August, the government of Ebrahim Raisi has tried to deepen ties with countries, especially neighbors and Asian countries.

Raisi also said his government is seeking to lessen the economic problems of the people, suggesting, “By tapping all capacities of the country and these problems should be reduced.”

The president said during the nearly first three of months of his government export to neighbors have increased 30 to 40 percent.

“The neighboring countries are keen of Iran’s agricultural and industrial products but they should only be presented in correct way,” Raisi added.

He also pointed to massive vaccination of citizens in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic in the first few months of his government, saying, “At the beginning of the work of the new government about 700 families lost their loved ones (to Covid-19). God willing, the current situation has improved greatly through vaccination.”
 
He also said as the situation improves in regard to the pandemic the universities will resume their classes. 

Currently, the universities and schools are held virtually. 

“It is possible to achieve 8% economic growth”

During his visit to Qom, President Raisi also held talks with grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi.

The president said his government is working round the clock to resolve the people’s livelihood problems, saying it is possible to increase economic growth to eight percent annually.

Raisi added that putting an end to budget deficit in the current Iranian year is one of his government’s concerns. The current Iranian year ends on March 20,2022. 

He said unlike the previous administrations, his government does not lend from the central bank in the face of budget deficits.

The government is fighting on two fronts: nullifying and lifting sanctions.

For his part, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi pointed to the status of Qom in the Islamic world, saying since the Qom belongs to the “entire world of Islamic” as it hosts the shrine of Hazrat Masumeh (SA), Jamkaran Mosque, the Seminary and therefore millions of travels are made to city annually it is necessary to build an airport in the vicinity of the city.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi pointed to high inflation in the country, suggesting that this problem should be resolved principally.

“Government trying to untie the knot” 

Also in a meeting with Ayatollah Alavi Gorgani, Raisi said people should not be worried about economic problems because the government is seeking to untie the Gordian knot.

The president went on to say that there are certain shortcomings in the areas of economy that can be resolved through cooperation by all state bodies.

President Raisi also held separate talks with Grand Ayatollah Ja’far Sobhani, Hossein Norui Hamedani. The main focus of talks centered around economic issues, including people’s livelihood, foreign relations, and cultural issues.

TAGS

• Iran
 
• Ebrahim Raisi
 
• Iranian president
 
• Iran’s economic growth

Iraqis put an end to weekly protests against election results

ByNews Desk- The Cradle

Supporters of PMU-affiliated parties had been gathering outside Baghdad's Green Zone since mid-October to demand renewed ballots

Protesters gathering at Baghdad's Tahrir Square near Al-Jumhuriya Bridge, which leads to the high-security Green Zone across the Tigris River. (Photo credit: AFP)

Late on 31 December, the supporters of Iraq’s Coordination Framework, an ad hoc group of Shia-majority parties affiliated with the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), removed their protest tents from outside of Baghdad’s Green Zone.

“At 16.00 local time, the protesters began to remove the tents and gradually withdraw in front of the gates of the heavily fortified Green Zone,” a security source told Arabic media.

Leaders from the Coordination Framework reportedly called on supporters to end their mobilization after the Federal Supreme Court ratified the parliamentary election results.

Soon after Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) announced the preliminary results from the 10 October ballots, protesters began taking to the streets to allege fraud in the electronic vote system.

On 5 November the mobilizations in Baghdad turned violent after security forces used live ammunition on hundreds of supporters of the Coordination Framework.

But despite the repressive violence, the protesters continued gathering outside Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone to demand renewed ballots.

The final results ratified by the judiciary show that the Sadrist Movement, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, emerged as the clear winner with 73 seats in the 329-seat parliament. They are followed by the Al-Takaddom party, one of two main Sunni political groups in Iraq, with 37 seats.

Meanwhile, the State of Law Coalition came third with 33 seats, while the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) won 31 seats.

Trailing far behind is the Fatah Alliance, which saw their representation in parliament drop from 45 seats in 2018 to 17 this year. Several other parties belonging to the Framework also saw their results drop significantly.

Another grim year for Afghanistan

Tanya  Goudsouzian

Members of Taliban taking control of the presidential palace in Kabul after Afghanistan's president flew out of the palace on 15 August, 2021 (AFP)

The fall of Kabul and the Taliban’s return to power was arguably the most shocking news to emerge from 2021, conveyed with the same PR savvy that characterised the group’s ramped-up campaign to oust foreign troops from Afghanistan.

Images of Taliban members posing triumphantly behind an ornate wooden desk at the presidential palace will forever illustrate the day a guerrilla force overthrew an elected government backed by the strongest militaries in the world.  

The image was a masterful stroke of propaganda and for the eagle-eyed observer, the painting behind the desk was no less symbolic. It depicts a mid-18th-century scene in which a large crowd looks on as a Sufi mystic crowns the kneeling Aḥmad Shah Durrani, an ethnic Pashtun tribesman who founded the modern Afghan state. 

Afghans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Frozen international aid funds would help to alleviate the severe humanitarian crisis, but it would legitimise Taliban's rule

The reasons for the Taliban takeover continue to be fiercely debated. Why did the Afghan army, after 20 years of first-world military training, armed with modern weapons and aircraft, collapse in less than two months? How did the Taliban develop such tactical prowess? Why did the international community merely stand by and watch? 

Then the final affront by US President Joe Biden. In his widely derided and tone-deaf remarks on 1 September, he cast blame on the Afghans themselves for their own misery, insulted the memory of fallen Afghan soldiers, and absolved his administration of any responsibility in the chaos of a bungled evacuation. 

As the year ends, a grim new reality emerges in Afghanistan. Mass starvation, economic collapse, and brutal extrajudicial executions greet the new year. The myth of a modern and more progressive Taliban 2.0, peddled by Taliban’s own PR machine and amplified by the world’s most respected media outlets continues to be discredited by ground reports of repressive policies toward women, reprisal killings, and gross human rights violations.

Despite repeated assurances by erudite spokesmen such as Zabiullah Mujahid and the Doha-based Suhail Shaheen in the weeks after the takeover, the newly formed Taliban administration is anything but broad-based and inclusive. The international community, still reeling from scenes of a botched mass evacuation and grappling with an outpouring of refugees, fecklessly watches from afar, merely voicing “concerns”, proclaiming “conditions” and declaring that “the Taliban will be measured by actions, not words.” 

Afghans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Frozen international aid funds would help to alleviate the severe humanitarian crisis, but would also legitimise the Taliban's rule. Some Afghans are calling to release the funds on humanitarian grounds, while others insist on using the funds as an incentive for the Taliban to yield on some of its repressive policies. In either case, funds will be siphoned off by the government or free up other government funds for questionable activities. It is certainly the case that humanitarian concerns are not at the top of Taliban's priorities.  

2022 looms large for the Taliban. The fledgling government is grappling with unprecedented humanitarian and financial crises, international condemnation, some measure of popular backlash, and a terrorist threat to its power and control. 

Palestine: More traditional diplomacy, but no stability

Richard Falk

To begin with, we will witness a growing awareness that traditional diplomacy will not bring stability, much less peace with justice, to this struggle, which has gone on for more than a century.

2022 is likely going to experience a much-delayed funeral that finally pronounces the death of Oslo diplomacy along with its reliance on direct negotiations between the two sides, and the US pretending to serve as a neutral intermediary, sometimes half ironically identified as an 'honest broker'.

It has been made clear - time and time again - that Israel's political leaders don’t want just a political compromise that leans in their favour. Israeli has long shrugged off pressures to comply with international law or to pretend support for a peace process guided from Washington.

Israel has - for some years - stopped pretending that it supports a diplomatically arranged solution.

The most encouraging development for the Palestinians is in the symbolic domain of politics.It is here where they are winning even in America, especially among younger Jews, along with some signs that the bipartisan consensus in the US Congress is splintering, at least at the edges

No foreseeable surge of Palestinian resistance poses much of a threat, especially as neighbouring Arab regimes have become distracted or detached from the conflict, with some previously-hostile governments even displaying a willingness to join openly with Israel in confronting Iran.

This image of dead-end diplomacy is reinforced by the US posture post-Trump.

On the one side, the Biden presidency has signalled that it will not challenge Trump’s signature moves, including moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, confirming Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, endorsing the "Normalisation Accords" and even seeking their expansion, capped by reassurances to Israel that it will collaborate regionally, especially when it comes to Iran.

At the same time, Biden seeks to appear to be taking a more moderate tone, which explains Washington’s renewal of public support for a two-state solution and mild rebukes when Israel uses excessive violence against Palestinian civilians or moves to expand Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

I would suppose that even Biden realises that the two-state solution has long been a zombie fix that allows Israel to let the unresolved conflict with the Palestinians simmer indefinitely.

As matters now stand the Biden presidency is weak and unable to push forward his domestic agenda, which has disappointed the American public. Under these circumstances, the last thing he wants in 2022 is even the mildest break with Israel of the sort that occurred toward the end of the Obama presidency.

In my view, the most notable developments in 2022 will be prompted by growing disillusionment and disbelief that constructive action will follow from either the peace diplomacy of the past or new UN pressures. Palestinian resistance will continue to send signals to the world that the struggle goes on no matter how hard Israel works to show the world that it has prevailed in the struggle and that the best that the Palestinians can hope for are economic benefits to be bestowed following a political acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state along with a pledge not to oppose Zionist Ambitions to conquer what remains of the ‘promised land'.

In other words, the year ahead will likely announce to the world that Israel has opted for a one-state unilateral solution along with a Palestinian refusal to swallow such toxic Kool Aid.

Given this line of thinking, the most encouraging development for the Palestinians in the year ahead is likely to be in the symbolic domain of politics, and what I have previously called the 'Legitimacy War' dimension of political conflict.

It is here the Palestinians are winning even in America, especially among younger Jews, along with some signs that the bipartisan consensus in the US Congress is splintering, at least at the edges.

We all need to remind ourselves of three salient features of the present context: (1) the Palestinians are fighting an anti-colonial war against an apartheid government in Israel; (2) the major anti-colonial wars have been won, not by the stronger side militarily, but by the winner of the Legitimacy War as the US discovered in Vietnam, and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan; (3) the Palestinians will be increasing seen by the informed global public and media as winning the Legitimacy War; this impression will be supported by continued fact-finding at the UN and further engagement by the ICC.

Can MBS turn the page for Saudi Arabia in 2022?

Madawi Al-Rasheed

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during an interview in Riyadh in June, 2021 (AFP)

In 2022, all of Saudi Arabia's international allies will encounter questions in their own countries should they attempt to fully turn the page on the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's earlier intrigues and crimes. MBS may struggle to return Saudi Arabia to its previous glory when it was the first nation to which the international community turned to solve the many problems confronting the Arab world. 

Mohammed bin Salman could sit and wait in Riyadh for the next US election, which may bring a friendlier president to the White House

The crown prince in Riyadh can count on both Russia and China to help rehabilitate him on the international scene - but they are no alternative to the old US-Saudi alliance.

Russia’s interest in Riyadh centres on oil and a growing, but minor, arms trade that cannot replace Washington’s role. Equally, China welcomes greater economic opportunities in Saudi Arabia, but it remains aloof politically and culturally. 

MBS cannot suddenly pivot to the east, for many reasons. His military arsenal is western-based, and he still longs for a restoration of his country’s relations with the US that defined the Trump era. He could sit and wait in Riyadh for the next US election, which may bring a friendlier president to the White House.

MBS could also turn his attention to Britain and Europe, both of which are opportunistic and willing to accommodate the crown prince without allowing his abysmal human rights record to derail future arms deals. Britain maintains close ties with Riyadh, and the current conservative government is not willing to undermine future opportunities in the name of upholding human rights. Britain will remain the second-largest supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia, as it has always been. 

So, it seems the crown prince will continue to be a persona non grata in Washington, or in any other international platform where the US has taken the lead.

MBS failed to turn up at recent G20 and COP26 meetings because he wasn’t guaranteed a handshake or photo opportunity next to Biden and other world leaders. The Saudi crown prince was also not granted the honour of helping the US during the summer crisis in Afghanistan, as its military forces withdrew.

However, this does not necessarily mean MBS will be snubbed forever.

The US continues to initiate selective engagement with Saudi Arabia and as 2021 came to a close, the US wants to ensure that Saudi oil continues to flow in abundant quantity, lest oil prices continue to rise, thus undermining western economic recovery after two years of disruption fuelled by Covid-19 and low energy demands. 

The End of the American century

David Hearst

From the end of Pax Americana to the complexities of the post-post-Cold war era, to rehabilitating MBS, and starving Afghanistan, while France grapples with big questions, and Palestine continues to resist: 2022 promises to be an eventful year (Illustration by MEE)

As 2021 drew to a close, the chance of a global conflict involving real armies and real arms has never been higher and the tripwire to using weapons of mass destruction has never been strung tighter. Nor have all the world’s military powers been better armed, able, and willing to start their own inventions.

US President Joe Biden should bear this in mind. Washington would do well to look at the map of the world and think before it makes its next move. A long period of reflection is needed. Thus far it has obtained the dubious distinction of getting every conflict it has engaged in this century wrong. 

After the damage done this century by conflicts ordered, created and backed by US presidents  - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya - the US should get on with the urgent task of deconfliction

It is now in the United States' strategic interest to staunch any more bloodletting in the battlefields it created this century. That means the US should come to a deal with Iran by lifting the sanctions it has imposed on Tehran since the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

If it wants to balance the growing Chinese and Russian influence in the Middle East, that is the surest way to do it.

Iran is not going to give up its missiles any more than Israel is going to ground its airforce. But a deal in Vienna could be a precursor to regional Gulf security negotiations. The Emiratis, Qataris, Omanis, and Kuwaitis are all ready for it. If Washington wants to apply rules, let it do so first with its allies who have so far enjoyed extraordinary impunity for their brutal actions.

If Washington is the champion of human rights it claims to be, start with Saudi Arabia or Egypt. If it is the enforcer of international law, let’s see Washington make Israel pay a price for its continued settlement policy, which makes a mockery of UN security council resolutions, and its own policy for a resolution to the Palestinian conflict. 

Israel acts with a ruthless logic. It will use any opportunity to expand its borders until a Palestinian state becomes an impossibility. It probably has already succeeded in that aim.

However, this is not US policy. But this expansion continues, almost week in, week out, because no one in Washington will lift a finger to stop it. Doing nothing about armed lynch mobs of settlers attacking unarmed Palestinian villagers in the West Bank is the same as agreeing with them. 

If you want to be a champion of rules, apply those rules to yourself first.

This is the only way to regain lost global authority. The US has entered a new era where it can no longer change regimes by force of arms or sanctions. It has discovered the uselessness of force. It should drop the stick and start handing out bucket loads of carrots. It should get on with the urgent task of deconfliction. After the damage done this century by conflicts ordered, created, and backed by US presidents - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya - that is not only a responsibility but a duty. 

Another US strategic mistake would be its, and Western Europe's, last.

Once again this year, the UN General Assembly repeatedly voted overwhelmingly to criticize Israel. Why?

BY PETER LARSON 

Again in 2021, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed 14 resolutions aimed at criticizing Israel (and supporting the Palestinians). On every resolution, only a handful of countries (among them the USA, Canada and a sprinkle of small Pacific island nations) stood with Israel. Some others abstained.

The assembly debates the SAME (or nearly the same) motions every year, and all of them denounce Israel’s repeated violations of UN General Assembly resolutions.

Example:

• Condemning the settlements
• Affirming Palestinian right to self determination
• Rejecting Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem
• Support for Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA)

Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the UN General Assembly has passed more resolutions criticizing Israel than ALL OTHER STATES COMBINED!!

WHY??

Palestinians: “Israeli human rights abuses are well documented”

For Palestinian activists and human rights supporters around the world, the answer is obvious.

Israeli human rights abuses of Palestinians are flagrant and well documented.

Reports from a wide range of organizations including the UN, the International Court of Justice, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, leave no doubt that Israel’s actions deserve condemnation. Repeated reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories have highlighted abuses in the West Bank, in Jerusalem and in Gaza.  Even Israeli organizations like the Association for Human Rights in Israel (ACRI) and Breaking the Silence are critical of Israeli actions. So it’s not surprising that the UN is vocal in its condemnation.

Israelis: “This is Israel bashing. Why only Israel?”

Israel’s defenders are indignant. “Why so much focus on Israel when there are many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere whose human rights abuses are at least as bad as those in the West Bank?”, they ask. ”Surely Saudi Arabia’s public floggings and beheadings, Egypt’s feared prisons and Jordan’s secret police deserve as much criticism as Israel.”

Furthermore, point out Israel’s supporters, many of the countries voting against Israel are themselves serial human rights offenders. So why the double standard?

The underlying suspicion of course, sometimes stated, sometimes only hinted at, is that the UN applies a double standard, perhaps revealing an underlying antisemitism.

UN RESOLUTION IN DECEMBER 2021, ON “UNRWA”. ALL OF ISRAEL’S NEW “ABRAHAM ACCORD” PARTNERS VOTED TO SUPPORT UNRWA OVER ISRAELI OBJECTIONS. ONLY 4 COUNTRIES SUPPORTED ISRAEL. SOURCE: UN WATCH

Yet there are reasons for the special focus. Let’s explore them.

The global south: “It’s European colonialism”

There are 193 member states in the United Nations. Three quarters of them were still colonies in 1947 when the decision was made to give part of Palestine to European Jewish refugees to form a state of their own. The global south does not feel any responsibility for the Holocaust, nor does it share the European guilt. The UN General Assembly is the biggest forum where the global south gets to present its anti-colonial case to the world. It sees Israel as a prime case of European colonialism and feels justified in opposing it.

The UN perspective is clear: “Israel has obligations to the UN and the UN has obligations to the inhabitants of former Palestine”.

As the UN General Assembly stated a year ago:

“The United Nations has a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy.” 

Israel has a unique relationship to the UN. UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947 proposed carving a new Jewish state out of historic Palestine. It was passed by 33-13, with 10 abstentions. Israel quickly embraced UN resolution 181. Its own Declaration of Independence cites UN 181 as recognition of its right to exist.

While “awarding” 55% historic Palestine to the new Jewish State, resolution 181 also included provisions for the protection of minorities inside each of the two new states. These included:

• “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.”
• “All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.”
• “No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (or by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes.”

But it rapidly became clear to the international community that Zionist forces had no intention of respecting many of UN’s provisions. In fact, by its Independence Day on May 14, 1948, Zionist militias had already seized more land than had been allotted under the UN plan and had driven out over 350,000 Palestinians.

The UN General Assembly responded by voting through another resolution (194) in December 1948 affirming that those refugees have the right to return and to compensation. (The vote was 35-15 with 8 abstentions.)

When Israel sought membership in the UN a few months later, it promised to respect all relevant UN resolutions. The UN was divided on whether Israel should in fact be admitted, but US and European domination of the UN awarded Israel UN membership.

But while Israel adopted the part of the UN proposal giving it a Jewish state, Israel defied the UN proposal in that it:

• Seized much more land than proposed in the partition plan (78% vs. 55% of historic Palestine)
• Took over Jaffa and seized West Jerusalem
• Expelled over 750,000 Palestinians
• Confiscated their property
• Destroyed over 400 villages
• Prevented refugees from returning
• Restricted the civil rights of the Palestinians who remained in Israel

As former General Secretary Kofi Annan said in remarks after leaving the UN in 2006, Israel’s defiance of UN provisions is a painful and festering sore for the UN.

“The failure to achieve an Arab-Israeli peace remains for the UN a deep internal wound as old as the organization itself, (…) a painful and festering sore consequently felt in almost every intergovernmental organ and Secretariat body.”

“No other issue carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge affecting people far from the zone of conflict.”  

(Kofi Annan, Interventions (2011), p. 254)

Conclusion: both principle and posturing

The repeated UNGA votes condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinians are not based on the claim that Israel is the worst abuser of human rights in the world. There are others that are just as bad or perhaps worse.

Nor is it because the whole world is antisemitic. Many of the countries which vote to support Palestinian rights have never had any significant Jewish communities.

The fundamental reason is that Israel, a UN member, continues to ignore the commitments it made to the UN when it was admitted in 1949 and repeated UN warnings about the occupation of 1967.

But there is also a significant element of political posturing. The annual spate of UN resolutions on “The Question of Palestine” gives the global south a forum for brandishing their opposition to the effects of European colonialism. Even some rather reactionary regimes, like Saudi Arabia and the other Abrahamic Accord states, voted to support the Palestinians in the UNGA resolutions.

Politics is often a mixture of principle and posturing. But if Israel continues to ignore UN resolutions, it can expect mounting frustration in the international community and a continuation of world criticism every year at the UNGA.