Read more about his experience overseas in his blog, Embedded in Afghanistan.

The wait continues for the president’s decision on General McChrystal’s recommendation. The unfortunate aspect of all of this business is that the debate is taking place in the public eye. While having a public debate on the efficacy of sending more troops certainly satisfies the exigencies of American politics, it’s most certainly not beneficial to the war effort as a whole. I say this because if the decision is made to not send more troops, or even not send as many as asked for the by the general, we will be perceived by the Afghan government, people, and security forces as abandoning them and losing our will to fight the insurgents. I can confirm that the ANA leaders I habitually talked with were always worried about our ability to stick things out and did not want to see us go anywhere until the country had progressed significantly.

Perception is an incredibly important part of any counter-insurgency, as winning the support of the people should ultimately lead to victory. I can confirm that many of the people of Afghanistan don’t really care who wins this war, just so long as someone wins it, and they can live a semblance of a normal life…i.e. the people will support the side that appears to be on the path to victory.

For these reasons, any action leading to the perception of weakness or lack of commitment on our part needs to be scrupulously avoided. It would have been better to avoid all of this public debate on the issue…unless the request is granted of course, in which case we may take some small benefit from all of this publicizing of our intentions on the matter.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

North Korean Major Im Dong-chul. Photos: Ben Piven

Part 3 of 6 in our Inside the Hermit Kingdom series on the people and culture of North Korea. Worldfocus multimedia producer Ben Piven writes about his encounter with Major Im Dong-chul while on the north side of the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas.

Since 1953, it has been the world’s most militarized border. Bill Clinton has called it the scariest place on earth. Undoubtedly, my most compelling moment in North Korea was at the DMZ — Demilitarized Zone.

Many Americans visit the south side of the 2.5-mile wide buffer zone that runs across the 38th parallel, dividing the Communist north from the democratic south. But our group was given a rare glimpse of the north side, where more than one million soldiers lie in waiting.

Our tour guide, Im Dong-chul, was a 21-year veteran of the Korean People’s Army with a sharp jaw and oval eyes. He offered us our only opportunity to engage in real political conversation with a North Korean soldier. Although the dialogue began with tremendous tension, we moved toward a cordial rapport during our 90 minutes together.

Speaking in Korean, Major Im fielded questions about war and peace. The major and I squared off, with two dozen others crowded around, and I seized the challenge of bilateral hardball. I was simultaneously engaged as a journalist and a diplomat. And since Americans of neither profession are common in North Korea, the task at hand was immense.

Promoting the elusive two-party talks sought by North Korea, I asked what message I should relay to President Obama.

Major Im, with the line of control and U.S.-administered building on the South Korean side in the far background.

“The U.S. should end its hostile attitude towards the DPRK by withdrawing its forces from the Korean peninsula. This is the biggest issue blocking reunification,” he said.

“As a representative of the American people, I know that we voted for a new president because we wanted big changes in foreign policy,” I responded. “President Obama is sincere, but he’s busy with a dozen other problems.”

“If every American were like you, there would be peace,” he concluded. “And I hope Obama’s policy shift happens soon.”

I apologized for American bombers leveling Pyongyang during the Korean War, and the major responded to my empathy. I then reiterated the bottom line of denuclearization: the north needs to implement security guarantees for the south.

It was shocking that Major Im even tolerated our input. Apparently, American tourists had never engaged him before. We too felt the pressure, especially in the DMZ meeting room straddling the Korean border.

I wondered about the significance of the exchange. I had come to terms with our contribution to the tourist economy but hoped that we were not becoming apologists for the state’s Juche ideology.

Back at the hotel that night, we noticed signs of diplomatic progress on BBC World News. But the process is cyclical: the North relaxes its stance, opens to talks, and then postures militarily after making impossible demands. The leadership clams up, afraid to risk humiliation at the bargaining table.

Later in the trip, we heard endless misinformation at the Korean War museum and during our tour of the captured U.S.S. Pueblo spy ship.

In the conference room that straddles the line of control between the two Koreas.

We were told repeatedly that the Korean War was used to lift the Americans out of the depression and that the U.S. had initiated the war.

Yet, we heard not a peep about the American role in liberating Korea from Japan in World War Two, though we often heard more animosity toward the Japanese than toward the sworn American enemy.

During five days in the DPRK, North Korean people never reacted contemptuously to our group as Americans. While anti-American dogma figures into museums and monuments, strangers were deferential and usually avoided us. Tourism workers were often excessively nice, especially if we addressed them in Korean or Mandarin.

My conversation with Major Im was a small but promising victory for the prospects of diplomacy aimed at bringing the world’s most isolated, nuclear-armed regime in from the cold.

- Ben Piven

Hillary Clinton meets with Pakistan’s Prime Minister. Photo: Flickr user americagov

S. Azmat Hassan, a former Pakistani diplomat, is now a professor at Seton Hall University. He blogs about the U.S. Secretary of State’s recent trip to South Asia.

U.S.-Pakistan relations have witnessed many ups and downs in the past decades. This is not an infrequent phenomenon in bilateral relations. A perfect congruence of interests between any two states even neighbors — say, the US and Mexico — is well-nigh impossible. So the Pakistanis appreciated the fact that Hillary Clinton was spending three days in their midst. In the past weeks, they have been at the receiving end of horrific suicide attacks from the Pakistani Taliban, which have claimed the lives of more than 200 army and police personnel, as well as innocent men, women and children. These attacks even included a foray into the heavily guarded Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, which shook the Pakistani army. The Pakistani Taliban had hoped to forestall the Army’s long awaited assault on their bases in the tribal areas of South Waziristan, but their efforts failed. The Army launched the assault a few weeks ago.

Clinton’s diplomatic talents were on full display as she conducted herself among a cross section of the Pakistani nation reeling from terrorist outrages. She must have gauged that most Pakistanis support the Army’s actions to destroy the military power of the Pakistani Taliban in the forbidding wastes of South Waziristan. The U.S. leaders have pronounced themselves “impressed” by the Pakistani counter-terrorism operations in that area. The home town of Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, has been captured, and he is in hiding. He is a marked man. As I have stated before, there is much riding on this Army operation to militarily degrade the Mehsud militia.

Simultaneously, the Pakistani leadership must take effective action against violent extremists in Southern Punjab who appear to have linked up with the Pakistani Taliban and remnants of al-Qaeda in the remote regions bordering Afghanistan. What was refreshing was Clinton’s affirmation that U.S.-Pakistan relations were too important to be confined only to the counter-terrorism sphere. U.S. help and that of the Friends of Pakistan group which contains many wealthy countries, could be crucial in advancing Pakistan’s socioeconomic development.

Violent extremism will only abate through the accelerated provision of education and employment opportunities. Unemployed youth with no other means of subsistence have to be made stakeholders. They will then join civil society as productive members instead of being recruited as suicide bombers.

Clinton pointedly reminded Pakistanis in her various meetings that the economic inequality between a small rich minority and a large deprived majority is a recipe for violence and unrest. I hope that her frank advice will be heeded by the Pakistani establishment.

Clinton also reassured Pakistanis that the U.S. will not abandon Pakistan this time. Both countries have a huge stake in ridding the region of fanatical obscurantists who want to drag South Asia into the Dark Ages. Let’s hope she means what she says.

A Taiwanese gamer playing Happy Farm on Facebook. Photo: Flickr user copycatko

Hsin-Yin Lee, a former associate producer at Worldfocus, is a news editor at the “China Times” in Taipei.  She writes about the current Taiwanese obsession with a Facebook game.

“Happy Farm,” a six-month-old Facebook application, has spawned millions of cyber farmers across the island. According to the game developer, Taiwanese fans constitute up to 80 percent of the 3.7 million members of “Happy Farm.” Thanks to its popularity, Facebook’s reach rate in August was up 60 percent from July, which helped Taiwan post the highest growth in new Facebook members worldwide during September.

The rule of “Happy Farm” is quite simple: You come, you seed, you conquer. Each virtual farmer is allowed to set up farms, grow crops and raise livestock in a fiercely competitive environment. Points are won not only by one’s hard work but also his craft in stealing from friends when they are offline.

However, not everyone is happy with “Happy Farm.” Taiwanese premier Wu Den-yih recently had to step in to discourage people–especially civil servants–from playing it.

Wu’s comment came after several server shut-downs at local police stations because too many police were playing the game at work. The authority also worried that “crop-stealing” might hurt the image of the police.

The Happy Farm craze has set Taiwanese society in circus. In private companies, managers have issued statements to make clear that “harvesting in an air-conditioned room is immoral.” Some restaurants have even been renovated to resemble the “Happy Farm” interface to attract customers!

Students are complaining that too much work has made them unable to wake up in the middle of night to guard their crops; even drug dealers have been seen using the game to contact customers and establish new networks.

Experts say that overuse of Happy Farm didn’t come out of thin air, though. Taiwanese people are generally overworked, and it is the fatigue generated by heavy workload, experts argue, that leaves people no choice but to get connected through the Internet as much as possible.

According to the 2008 World Competitiveness Yearbook published by the Lausanne-based business school IMD, Taiwan’s working hours were ranked as the fifth-longest in the world - behind Mexico, Hong Kong, South Korea and India.

Since each Taiwanese employee has to work an average of 2,256 hours a year, experts said “Happy Farm” provides an ideal environment for self-indulgence at work. While taking care of your own farm brings contentment, getting a taste of humanity by stealing crops somehow eases the feeling of isolation.

Now, pardon me for ending my article here. I really need to get back to my farm to collect some pumpkins.

A Burka-clad woman in Afghanistan. Photo: Flickr user YanBoechat

S. Azmat Hassan, a former Pakistani diplomat, is now a professor at Seton Hall University.  He writes about the unending search for Osama bin Laden and why the U.S. should shift its strategy.

The month of October marks the eighth anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. It is now over eight years since the Bush administration successfully removed the Taliban regime from power in Kabul. But there was a crucial difference between the US eviction of Saddam from Kuwait and forcible regime change in Afghanistan.

In the former case the U.S. led coalition made sure that the Iraqi Army was destroyed. In the case of the Taliban many of their soldiers were allowed to escape to the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. Inexplicably, they were not pursued and neutralized. The Taliban lived to fight another day, and today they have regrouped to become a formidable fighting force.

Similarly, Osama bin Laden, who was virtually trapped in the Tora Bora Mountains in eastern Afghanistan, eluded capture. His whereabouts have remained unknown despite the millions of dollars spent on the largest manhunt in history. A FBI reward promising $25 million for information leading to his arrest has also proved unavailing so far. More pertinent I believe is the question: how relevant is bin Laden to America’s security concerns?

Bin Laden’s views may still appeal to a scattered following in Yemen, Somalia, parts of North Africa and elsewhere, but his ability to energize a vast multitude of Muslims to fight America seems to have been seriously compromised.

So the time has probably come to lessen our morbid fascination with the man. The Taliban leadership in Afghanistan may have already written him off as a credible ally. Instead of continuing to expend resources and efforts to find Bin Laden, it may be better for the US to reach out to elements among the Afghan Taliban.The attempt should be to wean them away from the diehard elements around Mullah Omar.

This effort would require, in security expert Bruce Hoffman’s words, “intelligence on the ground.” Do the U.S. and NATO have enough Pashto-speaking operatives deployed in Afghanistan to accomplish this task? If the Taliban commanders can be assured of a power sharing arrangement in the Afghan government, the present fraught situation in Afghanistan could conceivably take a turn for the better.

The Pashtun tribesmen do not form a monolithic bloc. It is military confrontation by the US that unites them against what they perceive to be a foreign military occupying their land. If they see the prospect of an end to the Afghan war through co-optation in the Afghan government, they may be willing to lay down their weapons.

I believe it is desirable to explore this option to end a ruinous war which if pursued militarily alone, could last indefinitely. This prospect would not be in the interest of any of the principal actors. It would probably engender more turmoil, more bloodshed and more agony in that region, with ominous consequences for all.

An Afghani shopkeeper in Herat. Photo: Khushbu Shah

Khushbu Shah studied political science at Berkeley then did a Masters in conflict studies at the London School of Economics. She currently lives in Kabul and conducts research for a consulting firm.

I never say no to a meal in Afghanistan that consists of anything besides the usual combination of greasy meat and greasy rice. When my manager called me around noon last week to join her inside our gated compound for “special company and gourmet food,” I was already ringing her doorbell before she hung up the phone.

As I strolled in, four men in military uniform turned around. My boss flashed a mischievous albeit discreet grin my way.

As I realized that this was my first encounter with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and I had a million questions to shoot their way.

As the instant Starbucks coffee was poured into steaming cups, I cornered one of the guests, a lieutenant colonel from the German Armed Forces Technical Advisory Group (GAFTAG). I hounded the worn out and lieutenant-colonel with questions about his interaction with the Afghans who worked under his auspices in maintaining equipment for the burgeoning Afghan army.

Because he mentors Afghans willing to join the international forces for work, he worries constantly about how their equipment is not always up to international standards. There is also a lack of understanding between his team and the national staff in terms of the relative importance of their jobs.

Showing a remarkable amount of passion and sincerity that I did not expect from a man in his position, he constantly referred his frustration with getting his Afghan workers to take their jobs seriously. His mentee chose this job maintaining equipment because it was close to his home, he knew the Afghan in charge and he got to stay in Kabul.

When the colonel brought more than $2,000 USD worth of new equipment for his mentee, the first thing out of the man’s mouth was,” But where is my present?” According to the lieutenant colonel, this mentality has become prevalent over the last decade of international assistance because people prioritize their individual own survival and their immediate concerns: money and presents.

We mulled over the the need to strengthen the the Afghan National Army (ANA). We also lamented the fact that an ANA soldier makes $70 a month versus over $1,000 for a UN driver. Also, the lieutenant colonel adamantly stressed the need for a stronger police force as the basis for post-conflict reconstruction.

Finally, of course, I had to ask him about Obama’s impending decision and the possibility of an increase in American troops. Surprisingly, his answer was not the one I expected. He replied with a simple statement, “If the current number of troops have shown no promise of improvement or change, then there is no point in increasing the number now or later.”

I have days where I meet private security contractors and end up throwing out many harsh words. Generally, it is a battle between the humanitarians, journalists, and NGO workers versus the security contractors and ISAF, but this was a conversation to remember. Not once did I feel the urge to launch a verbal assault, and in actuality, I gained a new perspective on the ISAF’s daily struggles.

- Khushbu Shah

Pyongyang residents at the Arch of Triumph. Photo: Ben Piven

The South Korean government says that the number of North Korean refugees in South Korea has surpassed 16,000, and recent immigrants are generally uneducated and underemployed. Worldfocus contributing blogger Jamblichus writes about their plight.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry has requested 9.3 billion won (US$7.9 million) to beef up its resettlement facilities for defectors from the North as the number of refugees arriving from its destitute neighbor keeps climbing.

According to the ministry’s 2010 budget proposal, Seoul plans to spend just over four million dollars to build a second Hanawon, a resettlement center for defectors and around three million dollars to establish smaller “Hana” support centers across the nation.

Lets hope that those doling out the cash take the request seriously (the ministry has requested a 25% budget increase for next year) for North Korean refugees are becoming a growing underclass in the South whose needs current resettlement facilities are hugely under-equipped to accommodate.

Until the late 1990s, the number of North Koreans defecting to the South remained insignificant, totaling just 86 between 1990 and 1994 and remaining in double-digits each year until 1999. Numbers began to shoot up thereafter — following a devastating famine in the North — with 583 arriving in South Korea in 2001 and 1,139 the following year.

On February 16, 2007, the unification ministry pulled a cracker for Chairman Kim Jong-il on his birthday by announcing that the total number of Northern refugees arriving in the South had reached 10,000; just 32 months later there are now more than 16,000. You do the math.

The first wave — in fact more a gentle ripple — of defectors were largely drawn from the North Korean elite. But recent defectors have often been young and unskilled, hailing from the communist state’s North Hamgyong province. The sheer numbers have meant they are treated no longer as romantic escapees deserving of full approbation by the southern public — but a burden on the taxpayer, somewhat unsophisticated and potentially threatening to the social order.

The South’s rigid and hyper-competitive education system looks almost designed to alienate young defectors further from an already difficult-to-crack South Korean society. And while there are success stories — from world champion female boxer Choi Hyun-mi to journalist Kang Chol-hwan — the vast majority wind up unemployed.

A survey of 654 defectors that was conducted in December 2006, showed that 45.1% were unemployed, 30% had part-time employment, 13.1% had temporary employment, and only 11.8% were either self-employed or had full-time employment. Another survey conducted by Professor Park Sang-an of Seoul National University in the same year came up with an unemployment rate of over 67%.

Things may have improved since then, but I’m guessing not dramatically, particularly given the sheer increase in numbers arriving. Another survey reported by the Chosun Ilbo in 2007 found more than half of North Korean teens in South Korea drop out of school, a staggering figure compared to the 1-2 per cent drop out rate for South Korean students.

Given the numbers, seven million bucks doesn’t sound like all that much. There’s only so long South Korea can afford such a failure of integration — as defector numbers burgeon — before the problem becomes significantly more visible. Let’s hope the Unification Ministry gets its money.

Mayan-inspired artifacts in Yucatan, Mexico. Photo: Flickr user ncreedplayer

Many conspiracy theorists, contradicting the claims of most scientists, point to 2012 as the year of the apocalypse. They often cite the Mayan calendar as evidence that doomsday will occur just over two years down the road.

Blogger Sean Goforth writes how the Mayans do not actually see 2012 as the end of the world — but merely as the end of a time cycle — and how most have more pragmatic concerns.

According to History Channel lore the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. Indeed the Long Count calendar, one of several used by the Maya, reaches the end of a 394-year cycle, known as a Baktun, at about that time. The Long Count calendar begins in 3114 BCE; hence, 2012 AD will mark the end of the 13th Baktun.

Popular consciousness has conflated “Mayan calendar” and “end of cycle, 2012,” interpreted ‘cycle’ to mean ‘existence’, and spawned a rumor mill that the world is on the brink of destruction. Turns out, global demise is at hand, rife with meteors, tidal waves, “pole shifts”, nuclear annihilation, etc. I, for one, was unaware until last semester. While returning mid-term exams, a student quipped that his grade didn’t matter because everyone is going to die in three years anyway. Normally a quiet bunch, I found myself among a chorus of doomsdayers. The speculation seems unlikely to abate—next month the apocalyptic thriller “2012” will debut in theatres.

Unlike other doomsday prophecies, this one contains a germ of archeological and astronomical truth. Along a rural path in southern Mexico, a tablet known as Monument Six was discovered in the 1960s. Inscriptions on the ruin note the year 2012 and speak of something happening with Bolon Yokte, a Mayan god associated with war and creation. One section of Monument Six roughly translates as, “He will descend from the sky.” A little eerie perhaps, but nothing too damning when put in context. David Stuart, an expert on Mayan epigraphy at the University of Texas, states, “The Maya never said the world was going to end, never said anything bad was going to happen necessarily, they are just recording this future anniversary on Monument Six.” The Maya also plausibly cited 2012 because they were astronomical prodigies. Upon the 2012 winter solstice the sun will line up with the center of our Milky Way, an occasion that only comes around every 25,800 years.

But the idea of the clock “running out” in 2012 is a Western invention. The Maya in fact celebrated the end of cycles, so the transition from the 13th Baktun to the 14th should be greeted, if anything, with revelry. And the Maya noted dates beyond 2012. Guillermo Bernal of Mexico’s National Autonomous University points out inscriptions at various Mayan sites reference future dates as far away as 4772. Part of the misinterpretation emerges from the Mayan practice of pre-recording important dates.

Still, experts are getting rather frustrated with the hubbub surrounding the Mayan calendar. Apolinario Chile Pixtin, a Mayan elder, is annoyed: “I came back from England last year, and man, they had me fed up with this stuff.” Sandra Noble, executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, calls the doomsday scenario “a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in.” Academics and Maya elders instead believe Earth in 2012 will be hit by a “meteor shower of new age philosophy” and pop astronomy, no doubt teased by TV specials.

Ruminating on doomsday in three years may be engrossing, but it’s a luxury many Maya don’t have. A drought-stricken 2009 is proving quite harsh. According to one Yucatan archeologist, if you went to Maya Yucatan communities and said the world might end in 2012, “They wouldn’t believe you. We have real concerns these days, like rain.”

- Sean Goforth

A Waziri man in Bela, Pakistan. Photo: Flickr user sahrizvi

S. Azmat Hassan is a former Pakistani diplomat.  He is now a professor at Seton Hall University.  He writes about the current Pakistani military campaign in South Waziristan and what the U.S. should do in the troubled region.

After months of planning, the Pakistani army has finally dispatched 38,000 troops into the Pakistani Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan. President Zardari and Army Chief Kiyani doubtlessly hope for a knockout blow to the newly anointed leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud. How much support Hakimullah enjoys among his fierce and warlike fellow tribesmen, the Mehsuds, is not known.

Military analysts estimate that Hakimullah commands around 10,000 fighters including 1500 battle-hardened Uzbeks from Uzbekistan. The Pakistani Taliban may be numerically outnumbered but have the advantage of terrain, tribal solidarity and extremist ideology.

It is crucial for the Pakistani army to blunt the power of the Mehsud group. A stalemate this time will be interpreted as a serious setback which could have ominous repercussions for the Zardari-led civilian government. If Hakimullah stands his ground, his stature among violent extremists in the region will grow. The ability of the Afghan Taliban to continue to use Pakistan’s lawless and ungovernable tribal areas bordering eastern Afghanistan as sanctuaries will continue unimpeded. Therefore there is much riding on the Pakistani operation. Its reverberations will be felt not only in Islamabad and Kabul but also in Washington, London and other Western capitals.

The modern history of Afghanistan is a sorry saga of continual blundering by the Afghans, the Soviets, the Americans and the Pakistanis. The Afghan leadership fell into the lap of the Soviets in the 1970’s, and the Soviets committed the original sin in 1979 of invading, occupying and brutalizing a poor neighbor which had done it no harm. The famous Soviet physicist and Nobel laureate Andrei Sakharov, said it best when he stated, “The war in Afghanistan itself was criminal, a criminal adventure taken on, undertaken by who knows who, and who knows [who] bears the responsibility for this enormous crime of our motherland.” The US turned their backs on a broken Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew in defeat in 1989. This was a sure recipe for radicalizing the region.

The Pakistani security establishment trained and groomed the Taliban after the latter captured power in Kabul in 1996. Today the Pakistani Taliban has turned on their former mentors. For the Pakistani leadership and common people, they have become Frankensteinian monsters.

The Obama administration made a big error in coining its so-called ‘Afpak’ strategy. What was required were two different approaches for two different, albeit neighboring, countries, with not much in common between them. Conflating the two and putting them in the same basket showed both ignorance and unfamiliarity with the political dynamics of both.  I am glad Obama is reviewing Afpak. He should treat both countries as separate entities, and the U.S. should craft different approaches to them. Hopefully Richard Holbrooke after his numerous visits to both nations has been able to advise Hilary Clinton and Obama suitably.

To succeed in its campaign, the Pakistani army will have to take a crash course in counterinsurgency warfare. Conventional land wars and confronting Taliban insurgents in their mountainous bases are as different as chalk and cheese.  The Pakistanis desperately need counterinsurgency materiel such as attack helicopters, electronic surveillance devices, night vision goggles, etc. The U.S. should cut out the bureaucratic red tape and provide such assistance quickly. It is in their interest that the Pakistani army succeed in their assault on their mutual enemies.

Finally, I would advise the Pakistani planners and their American allies to locate and cut off the financial support available to the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. This is an achievable task. The UN and Interpol can provide help, as can the European Union, the Iranians, Russians and other interested parties. Without sizable financial support, such insurgencies wither away sooner rather than later. That is how al-Qaeda has been reduced to a shadow of its former strength. This is the most effective way to defang the two Talibans.

After months of planning, the Pakistani army has finally dispatched 38,000 troops into the Pakistani Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan. S. Azmat Hassan, a former Pakistani diplomat, writes about the current Pakistani military campaign in South Waziristan and what the U.S. should do in the troubled region. http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/10/th_pakistan_waziri.jpg ]]> http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/10/19/moving-beyond-afpak-in-us-foreign-policy/7860/feed/ http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/10/12/us-mulls-military-options-in-afghanistan/7727/ http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/10/12/us-mulls-military-options-in-afghanistan/7727/#comments Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:20:39 +0000 Worldfocus http://worldfocus.org/?p=7727

An Afghan villager in late 2008. Photo: Flickr user RugNug

S. Azmat Hassan is a career diplomat and former ambassador of Pakistan, where his postings have included Ambassador of Pakistan to Malaysia, Syria and Morocco, and Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York. He currently serves as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University.

On how to proceed in Afghanistan: Obama should make haste slowly. He is being pulled in different directions, which is not unusual in American politics. Kennedy was pressured by his senior military commanders to preemptively attack Russian missile sites in Cuba, which he rejected. Instead, he wisely chose diplomacy. He averted a possible nuclear holocaust in the aftermath of which the living if any would have envied the dead. Truman dismissed MacArthur, a general with a big ego, who advised him to nuke China to stop their advance in the Korean War.

Obama should strictly order the US commander in Afghanistan General McChrystal, to observe military protocol by not courting the media to publicize his recommendation for 40,000 additional troops. He should go through the military chain of command instead of trying to become a military prima donna. The buck stops with Obama- the Commander-in-Chief.

Since time immemorial, no foreign army has won in Afghanistan. Alexander, arguably the greatest military commander of all time, and more recently the mighty British and the Soviet armies, all experienced humiliating reverses in Afghanistan. The US Army supported by some NATO forces, has been trying for 8 years to defeat a ragtag militia calling itself the Taliban. They have failed. One does not have to be a military genius to figure out that when the combination of the forces opposing you is in the ascendant; it is time to give up the military option. The Taliban have the advantages of geography, history and resolve to attenuate and outlast the US forces-whom they consider foreign invaders.

Throwing in more troops is not likely to alter the current military equation. In today’s world where asymmetric warfare has demonstrated that a $20 improvised explosive device can destroy humvees and armored personnel carriers costing millions, the military calculus is weighted in favor of the local resistance. It is a resistance, moreover, which is hugely reinforced by an apparently inexhaustible supply of suicide bombers who can wreak havoc among both the military and civilians.

Those who recommend military escalation are still hoping for a military victory. Their rationale for pursuing the military option is the wrongheaded conflation of the Taliban with al-Qaeda. No such partnership is discernible today in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime was overthrown by the US in 2001 for being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. They are unlikely to make the same mistake twice. American analysts themselves admit that al-Qaeda is down to around 100 adherents in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda is thus highly unlikely to be in a position to launch another 9/11 or any operation approaching it. Mullah Omar has publicly proclaimed that his fight is not against the West. It is against foreign military forces and the ineffectual and corrupt Karzai regime which stands further delegitimized in the eyes of many Afghans as well as many in the international community, for blatantly rigging the recent general election. Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires. It would be prudent for Obama who is considered an astute politician, not to fall further in this bottomless pit like the others before him.

So what can be done? The US must initiate a dialogue with the Taliban beginning with their leader Mullah Omar. A senior British diplomat whom I had invited recently to lecture to my class told them that at the height of the British conflict with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the British kept up contacts with them. When the IRA was ready to talk with the British authorities, they utilized an already established channel of communication.

Today the centuries old Anglo-Irish problem is largely resolved. Regrettably, the US has not evolved politically to set up such mechanisms with its antagonists such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hizbullah and Hamas. They have forgotten British Foreign Secretary’s Lord Palmerston’s sage advice tendered 150 years ago: in international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies- only interests. Today it is patently in America’s interest to explore the diplomatic option in Afghanistan as the military option has failed. It is the road to a dead end.

- S. Azmat Hassan

ACCRA, Ghana.
Several thousand children live and work on the streets here, and their numbers are growing. Increasing urbanization in the capital city and increasing poverty in the surrounding countryside are making more children vulnerable to all forms of exploitation and abuse, including a higher risk of exposure to HIV.

Amina is 11, an orphan who works as a porter in the suburb of Nima. Porters like Amina, known in Accra as kayayei, carry heavy loads in a basin balanced on their heads. She said in an interview that she came to Accra two years ago, when she was 9, after her parents were killed. They were returning home from their farm field on a bicycle when they were hit by a car and killed, she said.

Although she has aunts and uncles, they not only declined to take in the orphan but also accused her of causing her parents’ deaths, she claimed. Since she had no other family to run to, her only option was to head to Accra to find work and take care of herself. So now she carries loads for shoppers in the Nima market.

She charges 70 pesewes ($ .50 U.S.) for a small load and 1 cedi ($ .68 U.S.) for a bigger load. After the day’s work, she waits for a shop to close so she can sleep in front of that shop, she said, adding that she has been robbed a few times of the money she made that day.  She asked that her full name not be published because she feared for her safety if her relatives should learn of her whereabouts.

The minimum age when children can work legally in Ghana is 16. However, more than 26 percent of children between 5 and 14 work illegally, according to the Ghana Statistical Service. The service’s report indicates that children in rural areas work in fishing, herding and farming, and as domestic servants, porters, hawkers, mine and quarry laborers, and bus conductors. In urban centers like Accra, street children work mainly as truck pushers, head porters, and sales workers.

Jalal Mohammed, a program officer at Moslem Family Counseling Services in Accra, said in an interview that child laborers are not only denied access to education but also some are held in indentured servitude, forced to work off their families’ debts. According to his agency, more than 1 million underage children work in Ghana. Of those, more than 242,000 are engaged in the most dangerous and exploitive work and over 800,000 are not in school.

Mohammed said many child traffickers in Ghana have been publicly exposed but authorities have failed to prosecute them.  He added that the government would not act and traffickers would not be deterred unless aid workers, human rights activists, and journalists continued to apply pressure.

Ambassador Azmat Hassan

Azmat Hassan is a career diplomat and former ambassador of Pakistan, where his postings have included Ambassador of Pakistan to Malaysia, Syria and Morocco, and Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York. He currently serves as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University.

The outcome of the recent Geneva talks between the P5+1 and Iran is good news. The international community is rightly concerned at the ambiguity surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s agreement to turn over the enriched uranium fuel from its reactors to Russia represents a significant concession. But more significantly, it is a victory for diplomacy. It staves off, at least temporarily, the hawkish option of preemptive attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities by either Israel or the United States.

The latter course would be disastrous as it almost certainly would unleash more bloodshed and uncertainty in the Middle East — and probably tilt Iran toward joining the nuclear club. Iran feels hemmed in by the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel; by the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; and by nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. The Geneva talks open up the possibility of diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran.

The U.S. and Iran have not spoken to each other for 30 years. They have to reengage to serve their mutual interests. Normalization would enable American diplomats on the ground in Tehran to better gauge the dynamics of Iranian politics. Ditto for Iranian diplomats in Washington. If matters proceed well, it might enable Obama to have a direct channel to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Pakistan helped the U.S. and China to reconcile forty years ago, and it would be a possible mediator between Washington and Tehran.

I vividly remember accompanying President Leghari of Pakistan in a meeting with Khamenei, when the former was on a state visit to Tehran in 1994. Khamenei sat on the floor, and so did the Pakistani delegation, on exquisite Persian carpets interspersed with cushions. Far from the West’s caricature of Iranian clergy as a bunch of scowling mullahs in black robes, Khamenei appeared both genial and worldly.

I did not detect any fire and brimstone in his remarks. Engagement almost always softens the rough edges of animosity and misperception among adversaries. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of the U.K. said that a real hero is one who turns an enemy into a friend.

Diplomatic engagement between the U.S and Iran is imperative if we desire a more peaceful Middle East. This will be good for all actors. Iran is just too important and powerful to be intimidated or isolated. Nixon’s opening to China showed the enormous benefits of bringing China into the world’s mainstream. The same can happen with Iran. Diplomacy means putting oneself in the shoes of one’s antagonist. It means viewing intractable issues from a different prism. Ultimately, it means searching for accommodation. If the U.S. were to open up and normalize with Iran, it could open the way for a broad-based rapprochement between Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab countries and Iran. It could unlock the gridlock in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could thus be win-win all around — instead of the zero-sum game that the hawks want us to play.

- Azmat Hassan

For another perspective on the responsibilities of the P5+1, read contributor Dwight Bashir’s thoughts: Amid Iran nuclear talks, don’t forget human rights.

Should the P5+1 stand in solidarity with Iran’s reformers?

For the past 15 years, Dwight Bashir has worked on international conflict, human rights and religious freedom issues. He is a senior advisor for an independent U.S. commission focusing on international religious freedom. The views expressed here are his own personal views.

Now that the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russian, China + Germany) have embarked on multilateral negotiations with the Iranian government, it is time to look forward, not backward. The one-day talks in Geneva held last week will resume after an October 25 visit to Iran by representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to assess Iran’s newly-declared nuclear facility.

As expected, international attention has focused on Iran’s apparent willingness to send most of its enriched uranium out of the country and to allow the IAEA to inspect its latest facility. What has not received adequate attention is what happened on the fringes of the formal talks –- separate discussions between American and Iranian diplomats on human rights.

Here’s how the U.S. State Department spokesman characterized these conversations: “In addition to the focus on the nuclear program, they also had a frank exchange on a number of other issues, including issues of human rights. And we also raised the issue of American citizens who are being held in Iran…”

Understandably, the United States government asked about American detainees in Iran, but what other human rights issues were discussed? Unfortunately, there has been no further explanation.

Did anyone inquire about the hundreds of Iranian citizens injured or killed while peacefully protesting the contested outcome of the June 12 elections? Or the scores of dissidents and reformers who have been beaten by Iranian security and militia forces and unlawfully detained for weeks? What about before the elections, and the thousands of brave women’s rights activists, journalists, bloggers, ethnic and religious minorities, human rights defenders and others who have been unjustly imprisoned?

For that matter, did anyone raise specific cases such as the seven Baha’i leaders, in jail since early last year, who could be sentenced to death on October 18 on baseless espionage charges? What about the status of two Christian women, Maryam and Marzieh, who reportedly have serious health concerns yet continue to languish in prison — now for more than six months — without charge and facing the death penalty for apostasy?

Let’s also not forget that just two weeks ago, President Ahmadinejad arrived in New York on very shaky international standing with internal turmoil alive and well in Iran. Nevertheless, he still felt confident enough to spew anti-Semitic rants and anti-Western vitriol during his address to the United Nations General Assembly.

All is not lost. There is a way forward.

In addition to holding the Iranian government to account for its nuclear ambitions, the P5+1 should use its new platform to raise substantive human rights issues, and not just behind closed doors. The Iranian government has already agreed to “embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations,” so human rights are fair game. In particular, the P5+1 should publicly express its genuine concern about the plight of Iranian citizens, as well as raising specific cases (a similar method was used successfully by the United States during the 1970s when it raised human rights effectively during arms talks with the Soviet Union). This message must emerge in future deliberations, otherwise the morale of Iran’s reformers and — of advocates of freedom and democracy globally — will have suffered a major blow.

The P5+1 can cite Iran’s obligations under international human rights law; in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iran is a party. Not only would this present a unified front among P5+1 partners, but would also demonstrate solidarity with the Iranian people. If Russia and China balk, the four Western partners can still take a powerful stand. The Iranian people need to know that the international community cares about their fate and will not trade away 30 years of transgressions for potential nuclear concessions.

The U.S. Congress can also play its part. Both the Senate and House are moving forward on providing the Obama administration with a new set of targeted economic sanctions should Iran fail to produce tangible results in a timely fashion. Current legislation under debate identifies nuclear proliferation and support for international terrorism as justification for imposing new sanctions. Final legislation should add international human rights violations to the list. This inclusion would demonstrate that the Iranian government’s poor human rights record is on equal footing with other security concerns.

Even if symbolic, Congress should also consider triggering a targeted sanction under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). Iran has been on the U.S. blacklist of religious freedom violators for 10 years, yet no new sanction has been imposed. In addition, the State Department has a statutory requirement under IRFA to identify foreign agencies and officials responsible for violations of religious freedom and can bar individuals from entry into the United States.

This requirement remains unfulfilled.

Ideally, the ultimate goal would be to get international agreement among the P5+1 on any new sanctions. Although this isn’t a must. Again, if Russian and/or China hold out, the four Western allies can still work together. Since late 2006, the U.N. Security Council has passed three rounds of sanctions penalizing Iran’s nuclear program and imposing travel bans on those individuals involved. Why not do the same for Iranian officials involved in human rights abuses? It’s high time to identify Iran’s human rights violations as a justification for tougher sanctions. This act alone would bolster Iran’s reformers to play their part inside Iran.

- Dwight Bashir

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Plug 1 under a Creative Commons license.

Liberia’s forests fall within one of the world’s threatened biodiversity “hotspots.”

But as Worldfocus contributing blogger Myles Estey describes, for many Liberians looking to earn a living by logging, environmental preservation is not always a top priority.

Liberia turned down an interesting offer last week. Basically, a consortium of Western ‘partners’ offered to pay Liberia millions of dollars to not ratify several forestry contracts, themselves worth millions. The Liberian speaker of the house was reported to have called the offer a joke, saying, ultimately, that Liberians need jobs, not money.

This may be a fair assessment, but it did not seem like the full purpose of the offer was really considered.

[...] Despite being a country known for its ‘blood timber’ during the war, Liberia holds a massive share of the largely untouched Upper Guinean Rainforest, a precious, and increasingly rare commodity around the world.

This is valuable in a way that is difficult to sometimes rationalize in a country with an unemployment rate of 85%, and a desperate need for jobs: telling rural workers that they cannot have a job because of a global crisis involving the a substance in the air does not translate.

Of course, as UK-based environmental watchdog Global Witness raised in a report last week, these jobs offer a lot [more] shorter term benefits than virgin forests, and almost always, provide significantly less (in jobs, pay, and local benefits such as schools, clinics and infrastructure) than promised in their contracts.

Looking at other international companies involved in natural resources within Liberia, its not hard to see the dangers. Firestone, the largest employee, had to be dragged kicking and screaming last August in order to raise wages to $3.78 / day, plus a modest bonus for production, and to reduce their hours and quotas that were encouraging child labour until 2008. [...]

International forestry companies will offer similarly meager salaries for the dangerous, grueling work of equatorial forestry, and, many fear, will avoid responsibilities to the impoverished local communities.

Along with concerns raised by Global Witness and others about the track records of the companies involved in the proposed operations, and the legitimacy of some of the contracts, ample questions remain.

Does providing $5 / day jobs to hundreds of Liberians actually outweigh the benefits of preserving a virgin rainforest? Will the Liberian government be able to hold the international companies to task on their promises? How much of the proposed millions of dollars per year will actually remain in Liberia?

USAID has been working hard with the FDA (Forest Developmental Authority) to create truly revolutionary regulations for forestry here, including barcoded trees and logging strategies that look towards long term forest health. Making sure this happens will be another story of navigating bribes, failed promises and assessments (that may or may not have taken place).

Weighing environmental benefits against the need for economic growth is never easy. And this problem gets magnified in a country routinely exploited by the international companies they depends on for the capital and overhead needed to even start these operations in the first place.

With virgin forests becoming an increasingly rare resource around the world, greater debate should occur regarding the importance of both the forest and the trees, and how they can offer the maximal, long-term benefits to Liberia.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user The Advocacy Project under a Creative Commons license.

Amidst mounting criticisms about conditions, a United Nations human rights expert visited camps in the northern part of the country on Friday.

Bart Beeson, a freelance journalist and campaign organizer, and Annalise Romoser, a freelance journalist focused on human rights and rural development, describe the predicament at World Politics Review.

A displaced person in Sri Lanka.

Everywhere in the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo, posters featuring smiling soldiers holding rocket launchers and machine guns celebrate the recent end to the nation’s 26-year civil war. But in the government-run camps that still house more than 250,000 ethnic Tamils displaced by the war’s fighting, the mood is far from celebratory.

In late August, heavy rains at the largest camp, Manik, flooded tents and led to unsanitary conditions. According to aid worker K Thampu, “The situation was heartbreaking. Tents were flooded and mothers, desperate to keep their children dry during the night, took chairs and tables from school facilities for them to sleep on.”

Rains also caused toilets to flood, with worms covering large swaths of ground near latrines, says Thampu. At stake, according to local experts, is not only the immediate welfare of camp residents, but chances for long-lasting peace in Sri Lanka.

Most of the internally displaced people (IDPs) have been living in the camps since May, when they fled the intense fighting that marked the final battle between government forces and the insurgent group known as the Tamil Tigers. Publicly, the Sri Lankan government has committed to returning IDPs to their homes by November of this year, and several thousand people have been released from camps to live with relatives. But the government under President Mahinda Rajapaksa also maintains that others must remain in camps until the area around their former homes is cleared of mines. At the same time, government representatives are slowly screening camp residents to identify former combatants.

Aid workers and local experts agree that the government must move quickly, for several reasons. The most urgent among them is monsoon season, which starts at the end of September and will only exacerbate the already difficult camp conditions. More tents and toilets will flood, increasing the risk of communicable and mosquito-born diseases.

“We saw how bad things got after the recent rains, which only lasted 3 or 4 days,” says Thampu, who works for the Baltimore-based humanitarian organization Lutheran World Relief. “Imagine how bad they will get once the monsoons are upon us.”

In addition to the rains, long-standing tensions between Tamils and the Sinhalese-led government remain, even if the armed insurgency has been defeated. Many worry that if the government does not act quickly to return people to their homes, it will lead to new problems in northern Sri Lanka.

Thampu says that many teenagers in the camps are already frustrated. “Young people have told me, ‘We have no freedom to talk, no protection, no education, no recreation and no employment! Everything looks like hell in our life. What do we have to live for?’”

Despite living in a warzone, many teenagers were able to pass the university entrance exams. But now they cannot leave the camps to begin their studies. Thampu adds, “Victory has been declared, but what does that mean for them? It is important to give them a new start in life.”

According to T Thevathas, another aid worker in Manik Camp, “Peace and security in the north is the most important thing to consider. People have been waiting 30 years for this, but IDPs in the camps feel no security and have no peace of mind despite the government’s victory.”

Thevatas notes that for real advances to be made in the north, it is crucial for Tamils in the camp to feel that the national government is working on their behalf. “At this point,” he says, “IDPs have placed all their hopes for return on local governments and the international community.”

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user springm / Markus Spring under a Creative Commons license.

Saudi Arabia’s “guardianship” system requires women to receive permission from their husbands to perform a host of daily activities.

Women in Saudi Arabia often face discrimination and violence, and the country’s “guardianship” system requires women to receive permission from their husbands to perform a host of daily activities.

Women also face obstacles when trying to obtain divorces. Islam allows men to have up to four wives at a time. A Worldfocus contributing blogger at the “American Bedu” blog speaks with a divorced Saudi woman now living in the United States for her perspective on polygamy.

Q: Your mother was a second wife. What was that like for you growing up? Did you and your siblings have any contact with your father’s first wife and children?

A: Yes, my mother was the second wife. We stayed in a different house, but same area, so I met Khala’s children regularly; also we go to school together. They are same as my brothers. We didn’t have much contact with Khala except when we went on trips or Eid’s or marriages. My step-siblings also came to my house with father sometimes. But my mother and Khala don’t talk much to each other. It was like any other family, I guess, except that my father had two wives.

Q: In your view, how accepting was your mother of being a second wife?

A: My father is from a well-known family. He was in a good position so when his sister/mom approached my mother’s father, they agreed, she has no choice. This is what I hear from her. She is sad always but initially, she says, it’s tough and then she adjusted by praying a lot and accepting that it’s only Allah’s wish. She always told me never to become anyone’s second wife.

Q: Because your father had two wives, two families, do you feel this impacted on the amount and quality of time he spent with you?

A: Father was busy so he didn’t spend [time] with us children too much except maybe vacations and holidays, on a daily basis our mother only took care of us a lot. I wish he had only one family, some days he comes home, but [the majority of time] he spent in Khala’s house as that’s where my grandmother also stays. So yes, we missed him a lot. So many days we were alone and to be fair so many days Khala and my step-siblings were alone. I sometimes felt why have a father when he’s there only 50 percent at best.

Q: Growing up as a child of polygamy, how did it affect your own views of marriage? And what about your siblings, did any of them also elect to have polygamous marriages?

A: I know Islam permits having four wives, but I wish it were not so. I have seen my mother suffer and I have suffered; my mother was not very happy with her married life. When she was young she said she had dreams of marriage and they were all gone. I did not want to accept polygamy in my marriage but again Allah has his plans for us. One of my brother[s] and one step-brother has two wives. The others all have only one family. I wanted to put in my marriage contract that I did not want a co-wife but that did not happen.

Q: [...] Tell us about your marriage. Was it arranged?

A: Yes, I had big dreams of studying to become a doctor, but that was not to happen. We got a proposal from a well-known family and my father does business with them also so it was arranged. I [told] my father I wanted to finish university and do some more studies, but he refused. I wanted to contact my two brothers — we were very close — but I couldn’t and they were not told also (since they both lived outside the country). My mother told me it is best not to go against the wishes of my father. [...]

Q: What can you share about your own personal experience and feelings when your husband chose to take a second wife?

A: I was broken. WeIl, I could not accept that happily — all my life I did not want that one thing in my marriage and it had to happen to me. We were married for such a short time and he said he fell in love with her and wanted to marry her. If I could I would have left the marriage. I could not agree to polygamy and that’s when the abuse started. I wish I had the courage then to stand up to him, but there are no options, everyone tells you to work it out and accepts Allah’s will , but it was hard, his family knew how I felt yet they never saw my side, we had arguments about polygamy, his rights, Islam etc., and then always it would end with it being permitted in Islam and my disobedience and hitting. I did everything he asked just I couldn’t get to accept a co-wife. I prayed and I was no one to deny him his right but my heart did not agree. But he married again and she came to live with us. I cried to my brothers here and mom but unfortunately he had taken a second wife by then and they told me to pray and try to be a good wife, but did not support me.

Q: Was it easy to get away from your husband and obtain a divorce?

A: No, it was very hard. I don’t wish it on anyone. I was afraid to tell anyone about the abuse for the shame; I was not permitted to go on my own. Even if I did where could I go. Luckily my step-brother and his family had moved to Riyadh and he heard about my marriage from Khala (I thank her for that). My father had suffered a stroke by then. My brother came to see me one day and saw my face all swollen –- my husband always never hits on my face but happened that time. [He] yelled at my husband, I think it was the first time a woman has questioned him and his faith [...] my brother simply told my husband that he will take me to stay with them and in [the] future my ex-husband will have to deal with him. This caused such a bad rift in our family to this day we are all not one. After that it was a nightmare; I don’t know where to begin or end, but my other brother came from England and together they both paid a large amount of money and got me a divorce and also [a] visa to another country where my aunt/uncle stayed. From there I came to the U.S. and have since settled here.

For more, see the “American Bedu” blog.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user letsbook under a Creative Commons license.

Abu Absal Shurrab stood in front of his red jeep  and waved energetically when he saw me. I walked towards him. “Salaam aleikum!” we greeted each other warmly, and Abu Absal indicated that I should get into the jeep.

Abu Absal stands next to the car that he and his sons were shot in.

My heart stopped momentarily as he stepped out of the way and the vehicle became fully visible. The windshield was splattered with bullet holes. This was the car Abu Absal was driving the day he was shot and his sons, Kassab and Ibrahim, were killed.

I climbed inside the passenger seat, trying to discreetly count the bullet holes as Abu Absal guided the car onto the road. Twenty that I could see, including the semi-shattered rear-view mirror. Abu Absal noticed my preoccupation.

“Kassab was sitting exactly where you are now,” he told me. “Ibrahim was in the back seat, directly behind him. When the shooting started, I shouted for them to crouch down low. But the bullets went through the front of the car. I tried to replace the windshield, but because of the siege, there is no glass available anywhere in Gaza Strip.”

The final days of 2008 and the first weeks of 2009 saw a large-scale Israeli military bombardment and invasion of Gaza Strip. Israel termed the incursion “Operation Cast Lead,” saying it was intended to protect the citizens of the southern community of Sderot, 24 of whom had been killed by Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza over the past eight years.

According to a recently released report by the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem, 1,387 Palestinians were killed during the 22-day attack, over half of them civilians, including more than 300 children. Several thousand more innocent people were injured, more than 3,000 homes were destroyed and 20,000 were damaged. United Nations schools, clinics and other humanitarian facilities were bombed.

On January 16, 2009, towards the end of the onslaught, I received an email with the horrifying subject line:

“Help me save my dad’s life.”

It was from Amer Shurrab. I’ve known Amer for 10 years, since he was 14 years old. Amer is from Khan Yunis, Gaza, but had recently graduated from Middlebury College and had just moved to Washington, D.C.

With dread, I opened the email. Amer wrote:

“My father’s car was bombed today, he was in it with two of my brothers. My older brother 27 was killed while my dad 64 and my little brother 17 have been bleeding for over 14 hours and Israeli troops blocking ambulances access.  Please contact any media outlets, your congressmen, senators, any international organizations and try to get them help.”

Several hours later, I got another email from Amer with more details about the incident and an update. The morning of the attack, his father and brothers had gone to check on their farm during the daily three-hour humanitarian “ceasefire.” On their way home, his father’s red jeep was bombarded by a hail of bullets from IDF troops who had commandeered a house approximately fifty meters away. Amer’s older brother, Kassab, was shot in the chest and stomach 18 times and died on the spot. His father was shot in the arm and his younger brother, Ibrahim, was shot below the knee.

Abu Absal shouted to the soldiers that he and his sons needed medical attention. They shouted back for him to call an ambulance. He did, via cell phone, but was told by the Red Crescent that the Israeli army would not permit them access. Abu Absal managed to contact media and human rights groups, who launched an immediate campaign to pressure the army to allow medical care to reach the wounded civilians. Nearly 24 hours later, the IDF permitted an ambulance to reach Abu Absal and his sons. By then it was too late for Amer’s younger brother. Ibrahim had already bled to death.

Abu Absal parked the jeep outside an apartment building in Khan Yunis. “Here’s where we live,” he told me. “Any time you are in Gaza, you should make this your home!” We climbed the steps and entered. Abu Absal introduced me cheerfully to his wife and his two daughters. Heaviness and grief was palpable in the home, especially in the eyes of Amer’s mother and sisters. Nevertheless, Abu Absal was determined that my visit be an occasion for happiness. He instructed me to sit in an easy chair, next to his.

“We must speak of many things!” Abu Absal said brightly. “Your visit is like a breeze of fresh air to the family. Only…” He leaned towards me and adopted the tone of a fatherly scolding. “You are not staying long enough! So early tomorrow morning we will visit the farm, before you have to return to Gaza City!”

“Do you go to the farm often?” I asked his university-aged daughter, hoping to engage her in the conversation.

“Not really,” she replied, barely making eye contact.

“The girls no longer like the farm,” Abu Absal explained. “They blame the farm for the death of their brothers. After all, if we hadn’t gone that morning…” He didn’t complete the sentence.

Abu Absal shows off his farm.

The sun was just beginning to rise the next morning when Abu Absal and I climbed back into his battered jeep.  The sandy roads of Khan Yunis were bathed in golden light and early morning silence. We turned off the main road after passing the European Hospital. Less than a minute later, we approached an intersection. Abu Absal slowed down. “This was where they were killed,” he said. “You see that brown house?” he pointed. “That’s where the soldiers shot from. I didn’t know they were there. If I had known, I could have taken another route…”

Amer had told me how close the hospital was to the scene of the killings, but seeing it for myself felt like a punch in my gut. Kassab could not have been helped, but Abu Absal and Ibrahim, even with their injuries, could have made it there, walking or crawling or both. But the soldiers had threatened to shoot them if they moved.

Ten minutes later, Abu Absal was giving me a tour of the farm, pointing out with love and devotion each fig and citrus tree, every pepper, the collection of bee hives. From the window of the elevated farm house, he asked me if I could see the fence and the military tower in the distance. I could. “That’s the border with Israel,” he told me. “I watched dozens of tanks roll into Gaza from there. I must guard the farm every day to make sure no one uses it to launch rockets. I don’t want the Israelis to have any excuse to destroy my farm.”

The destruction was not always related to rocket fire. The day before, I had filmed the remains of a school bombed by fighter jets, a clinic that had been shelled and a residential neighborhood reduced to rubble. I had also seen a mosque sprayed with bullets from a recent shootout between Hamas and an Islamic militant group. But in the midst of this destruction, I also witnessed resilience and ingenuity. I saw tent-dwellers whose homes were destroyed tap into a main power line, providing their families with electricity. I watched a youth soccer tournament and broke the Ramadan fast with families at sundown. Though people were going about their daily lives, loss and pain in Gaza still run very deep.

Abu Absal tenderly showed me his baby eggplants nestled in rich soil. He offered me a ripe pomegranate dangling temptingly off a tree. A warm light glowed in his eyes.

“Your farm is beautiful,” I said, hoping my appreciation would further boost his spirits.

A cloud passed over Abu Absal’s face. He fingered the rubbery leaves of his olive tree silently. Finally he spoke, echoing, it seemed to me, the sentiment of thousands of Gazan civilians. Those who lost loved ones, their homes, their schools. Those who saw crushed in front of their eyes whatever hope they still nurtured, whatever shards of a normal life they had managed to preserve throughout decades of occupation and years of escalating violence.

“It is very beautiful here indeed. But the beauty means nothing since my sons are gone.”

- Jen Marlowe

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Outside the northeastern city of Dandong, construction workers take a break. Photo: Ben Piven

Multimedia producer Ben Piven writes about China’s ascendancy, after reporting on cultural and political issues from East Asia.

“Thirty years ago, you couldn’t find anything in American supermarkets made in China. Now, when an American friend shops for a gift, he can’t find one not made in China.”

Wu Jianmin, a high-level adviser and former president of China Foreign Affairs University, recalled his admiration for American supermarkets when he first came to the U.S. in 1971. He had been accustomed to government ration coupons for textiles, rice and most other goods.

China is no longer just playing catch-up, said Wu, who briefed a group of American journalists at China’s Consulate-General in New York last Wednesday. He and four other high-ranking foreign policy experts were on a world tour, promoting increasingly confident Chinese President Hu Jintao’s concept of a “harmonious world.”

This policy entails peaceful development, a repudiation of territorial expansion, and a non-aligned stance. But mounting Western pressure to force Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear weapons programs is testing China’s commitment to this program.

Wu and his fellow policy wonks emphasized that Americans need to have patience, despite saying that China does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Regardless, China will display its own new weaponry on October 1.

“Congratulations on your 60th birthday. I’m looking forward to watching the parade on television,” I said to Wu and his team, eliciting a chorus of laughter. “But should Americans be worried about the weaponry that you’ll be displaying?” I asked.

“America is a great country. You’ve got nothing to worry about. Our weaponry is peanuts compared to yours,” Wu responded.

Then, ABC News‘ Chuck Lustig asked if the U.S. is losing geopolitical clout. Wu respectfully declined to comment.

Zhang Yuyan, a prominent economist in the group, responded adeptly to Newsweek senior editor Rana Foroohar’s question about the export economy. Since exports started shrinking last year, China has struggled to transition from an unsustainable export-led growth model and take steps to bolster domestic consumption. The Chinese government will be hard-pressed to stimulate demand and dis-incentivize traditional tendencies to save.

The diplomats were exceptionally honest about China’s environmental problems. “We pollute too much,” said Wu. “It’s not sustainable. We’ve got to change too.”

As China builds fast rail, superhighways, and skyscrapers at breakneck speed, the U.S. emerges from the worst recession in decades. China invests heavily in alternative energy infrastructure, and America is bogged down in massive geopolitical quagmires.

We can expect a 21st century in which power is spread more broadly across the continents. While an Asian century per se might not be upon us, the Red Dragon is fostering its bold vision of a “harmonious world.”

- Ben Piven

A memorial for former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who committed suicide.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that suicide in South Korea has grown more common over the past two decades, and the nation has the highest suicide rate among OECD countries — around 22 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

In May of this year, in a high-profile case, former President Roh Moo-hyun lept from a cliff to his death following a corruption scandal.

A Worldfocus contributing blogger at “Jamblichus” criticizes the lack of awareness about suicide in South Korea, particularly compared to the enormous publicity surrounding the H1N1 flu.

Yellow tape encircled the apartment’s parking lot. The rooftop of the seven-story building crawled with small figures assessing angles and examining a rail. I could see it all from the top of the neighbouring hill I’d climbed near my house. Someone had fallen or jumped. Given the rail it seemed the latter was more likely.

Later my wife asked a friend who lived in the same block what had happened. The woman looked at her, paused, and continued their previous conversation as if the question hadn’t been asked; somethings are better left unsaid or unasked, her body language read. (아는게 병, 모르는게 약, as the Korean adage has it: the knowledge is disease, not knowing is the medicine. Or “ignorance is bliss” for an English language equivalent).

Meanwhile Seoul’s gripped in H1N1 flu hysteria. Supermarket assistants clutch sterilizing sprays and wipe down the handle on your trolley, politely asking you to momentarily remove the sweaty paws of your toddler first; offices proffer antiseptic handwipes at their reception desks. Death is all around! Argh, gargle, a-tissue!

Except… well, it’s not. There have been 7500 people diagnosed with the flu and 7 deaths since May. And almost all who’ve died have been old, infirm, or already had severe health problems. Compare this to a massive social issue in South Korea: suicide.

It’s not talked about much and definetely not the subject of mass mobilization and a media frenzy. But the Seoul suicide prevention centre receives well over a 1000 calls every month. And the country has the highest suicide rate of all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

The National Statistical Office (NSO) informs us that a total of 12,858 people, or 24.3 people for every 100,000 Koreans, took their own lives in 2008. That’s 35 suicides every day. EVERY DAY! My mountainous view was no anomaly.

Yet unlike the drugs companies, whose stock jumps with the news of every death, Good Samaritans don’t profit from the snuffing out of another life. And such hotlines are staffed by volunteers; there is no sub-economy of suicide, no business deals, no international threat levels. Suicide is just not sexy.

“If it bleeds, it leads” goes the old journalism chestnut, yet while the flu has gone pandemic — and the coverage has been spread like a mucus-smeared rag across, well, every rag — real bleeding, rather than sneezing, goes tragically overlooked: it’s just the desperate underbelly of a society on a very narrow pair of rails with a very steep drop on either side.

For more, read the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user letsbook under a Creative Commons license.

Chavez pledged closer ties to Iran and inked a deal yesterday with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to supply the Middle Eastern nation with up to 20,000 barrels of oil per day.

Today, Chavez appeared at the Venice Film Festival premier of a new Oliver Stone film about the Venezuelan strongman.

Meanwhile, massive protests erupted in Caracas this weekend. Anti-Chavistas are furious about the government’s economic policies and media crackdown. The news report below is from RCTV, an anti-Chavez Venezuelan news network.

Blogger Daniel-Venezuela writes about the importance of recent demonstrations. Read the original post here.

You only need to look at the overreacting of many Chavistas to notice that no matter how big yesterday’s No Mas Chavez rally were, Chavista officialdom is really upset. They cannot hide it.

Be it Chavez who takes lots of time to explain to us he does not care, from Syria, from Iran.

Be it the Venezuelan ambassador in Bogota who says that Venezuela is insulted (correction, you might be insulted, I am not) and implying that the Bogota government should not allow such demonstrations.

In fact Chavismo is so upset that revenge must be exacted. Thus Globovison, the closest object at hand, once again is under attack by a particularly bitter Diosdado Cabello, the guy in charge while Chavez visits the planets collection of tyrants. Not only a new investigation against Globovision is undertaken for a single alleged SMS (whereas the VTV ticker spews constant violence that the regime supports by ignoring them), but 29 more radio stations are to be taken off the air waves (in addition to the 34 already killed). Globovison offers the video of Cabello threats and bitterness. But the world is noticing and Diosdado words hit the news wires fast, even in English. They sure will be a nice complement to Chavez words supporting Iran’s nuclear program today…

Meanwhile there will be more wounds to lick for Chavismo: BBCMundo reports that in Honduras the No Mas Chavez was big in 5 cities of the small country while the pro-Chavez Zelayista camp could only manage an activity in Tegucigalpa…A very bad P.R. week for Chavismo.