Terrorism & Security

Argentina's President Cristina Fernández speaks during a national address while standing in front of a Falkland Islands' map at Government Palace in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tuesday. Fernandez says she will formally complain to the UN Security Council about Britain sending one of its most modern warships to the Falkland Islands and accused British Prime Minister David Cameron of militarizing their long dispute over the islands in the South Atlantic. (Eduardo Di Baia/AP)

Argentina says it will take Falklands question to the UN

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 02.08.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Britain has rejected the possibility of talks with Argentina about the status of the Falkland Islands the day after Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced that her government would lodge a complaint with the United Nations about Britain's "militarization" of their ongoing dispute.

Britain announced last week that it would replace an aging ship patrolling the waters around the Falklands, which lie to the east of Argentina's southern tip, with one of its most modern warships. It also said that Prince William was being deployed there as a search-and-rescue helicopter pilot. Britain claims these waters as its territory.

"There is no other way to interpret the decision to send a destroyer, a huge and modern destroyer, to accompany the royal heir, whom we would have loved to see in civilian clothing instead of a military uniform," Ms. Kirchner said referring to Britain's actions as the "militarization" of the South Atlantic and describing it as a regional and global security issue, Bloomberg reports. 

Argentina claims that Britain stole the islands, which Argentines call the Malvinas, almost 200 years ago. The two countries went to war over the Falklands in 1982, after Argentina's military dictatorship launched an invasion. The islands' roughly 3,000 residents are considered British citizens. This April will be the 30th anniversary of the war.

Britain's Foreign Office responded to Kirchner's declaration with a statement. “The people of the Falkland Islands are British out of choice,” the department said in an emailed statement, according to Bloomberg. “They are free to determine their own future, and there will be no negotiations with Argentina on sovereignty unless the Islanders wish it.”

On Jan. 18, Prime Minister David Cameron said Argentina's attitude toward the islands is "like colonialism."

Argentina has recently tried to shore up regional and international support for its claim to the Falklands. The South American trading bloc Mercosur – which counts Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay as members – announced in December that it would close its ports to ships flying the Falklands flag, BBC reports. Chile, the main air transit point for the Falklands, recently declared its support for Argentina's claim. Falklands residents' concerns that Argentina would close its airspace to flights between Chile and the Falklands, however, have not materialized so far, the Guardian reports.

Fernández has mobilised much of South America and the Caribbean in a diplomatic and commercial squeeze. Ships flying the Falklands flag are barred from the region's ports, depriving the islands of bananas and other fresh fruit.

She sought to widen the row by including Spain in the list of British colonial victims. "It is an anachronism in the 21st century to still have colonies, there are only 16 cases in the world, of which 10 are British and we've seen in recent days how the Spanish claim regarding Gibraltar has been renewed."

A summit last week of left-wing Latin American leaders backed Kirchner's campaign. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said he would support Argentina in a military conflict if one arose, the Guardian reports.

Kirchner insists that Argentines want talks, not war, over the islands. She has said repeatedly that it was only the military dictatorship at the time, not the public, that wanted the invasion in 1982, according to the Associated Press.

"We continue to assert that you can't blame the Argentine people for a dictatorship's decision, in order to refuse to comply with what the United Nations has ordered, to sit down and negotiate and talk," she said yesterday.

There have always been tensions between Britain and Argentina, but the discovery of oil in the waters off the Falklands's coast has raised the stakes. British companies have lately been working to develop oil there. Kirchner accused Britain of "pillaging our resources" and creating "ecological chaos," The Wall Street Journal reports.

Read entire post | Comments

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (r.) speaks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during their meeting in Damascus on Feb. 7. Lavrov began talks with Assad on Tuesday just days after Russia and China blocked a United Nations Security Council effort to take stronger actions against Syria. (Reuters)

Russia: The time for Syrian democratic reforms has come (+video)

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 02.07.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is in Syria today to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, just days after Russia and China blocked a United Nations Security Council effort to take stronger actions against Syria.

Mr. Assad’s supporters lined the streets of Damascus, waving flags – including a few Russian flags – to welcome Mr. Lavrov to the city, Reuters reports. Russia has been a staunch voice of opposition to international intervention in Syria. The Russian foreign ministry said Lavrov is there seeking “the swiftest stabilization of the situation in Syria on the basis of the swiftest implementation of democratic reforms whose time has come.”

In the days since its veto of the Security Council resolution, Russia has been in “full damage-control mode” amid an onslaught of international criticism, The Christian Science Monitor reports. Russian analysts defend Moscow's opposition, by saying the Western-backed resolution lacked a strategy for the “state collapse and social catastrophe” that is likely to follow if Assad is overthrown.

"The USA and the West insisted that the resolution had to be passed, allowing outside interference, in order to stop the massacre," of Syrian civilians, says Pyotr Romanov, a political analyst with the official RIA-Novosti news agency in Moscow. "But has anyone given any thought to what happens next? Are you really trying to tell us that good moral forces will come to power? People with no blood on their hands, who will bring anything decent, much less democracy? Please."

…

"We were not against the resolution, but we wanted such a clause inserted to ensure that no military interference in Syria was intended, but our demand was not met," says [Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's international affairs committee]. "We considered this to be a matter of principle, and we still do. . .  Russia feels a responsibility toward Syria, including military and technical cooperation, and our agreements stipulate mutual assistance in difficult situations. We don't have many such agreements with foreign states."

Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby said that Russia and China have lost “diplomatic credit" in the Arab world in the wake of their veto and said their vote implied to Mr. Assad that he had free rein for his crackdown on government opposition, Reuters reports.

Arabs would continue working to end the crisis but had a limited scope to act without international support, he said.

"We have put all our cards ... on the table. It is up to the United Nations to decide. The Security Council has failed," he said. "We have nothing else to do. We have 10 floors here (in the Arab League headquarters). Go find our planes or our tanks. What else do you expect us to do?"

Harvard professor Stephen Walt, writing in Foreign Policy, argues that last year's "triumph" in Libya – the UN Security Council's authorization of international intervention in order to protect civilians, which quickly became a tool for regime change – is now a major obstacle to international actions against Syria.

There are a number of reasons why the U.N. effort has failed thus far, but part of the blame lies with the liberal interventionists who abused the Security Council's mandate during last year's intervention in Libya.
…
But what if the Libyan precedent is one of the reasons why Russia and China aren't playing ball today? They supported Resolution 1973 back in 2011, and then watched NATO and a few others make a mockery of multilateralism in the quest to topple Qaddafi. The Syrian tragedy is pay-back time, and neither Beijing nor Moscow want to be party to another effort at Western-sponsored "regime change." It is hardly surprising that Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin condemned the failed resolution on precisely these grounds. In short, our high-handed manipulation of the SC process in the case of Libya may have made it harder to gain a consensus on Syria, which is arguably a far more important and dangerous situation.

Moscow may have been motivated in part by a desire to shore up the Assad regime because of the billions of dollars of arms contracts between the two countries. But Reuters reports that many analysts say the veto was “driven less by love for Assad or hope of a return to Syria’s pre-conflict status quo than by Prime Minister Putin’s desire to show … that he will deft Western efforts to impose political change on sovereign states in regions of big power competition.”

Russia may be merely seeking a “controlled demolition” of the Assad regime, without Western intervention, rather than a desire to prop up the current government, according to Reuters.

Meanwhile, the Syrian government’s onslaught has barreled on, emboldened by Russia and China’s defense. The BBC reports that the Syrian Army has been “pounding” Homs, one of a few rebel strongholds throughout the country. Residents worry that the artillery being fired on the city from its outskirts will soon turn into a ground assault, led by army tanks.

Activists told the BBC that at least 95 people were killed in Homs on Monday alone.

Turkey said it will launch an international effort of its own against Assad, BBC reports.

China, the other country that vetoed the UN resolution and thus also a target of international criticism, said it may send an envoy to Damascus.

"Today, China, because of its rapidly rising strength, sits at the main table on the global stage, and needs to get used to newly being in the limelight. The international community also needs to adjust to China's new role," said Ruan [Zongze, identified as a foreign affairs expert writing in The People’s Daily]. "Although this means that China will face even more difficult choices when it comes to handling complex international affairs, China must dare to speak its mind, and proactively create a just, rational global political process." 

Read entire post | Comments

In this citizen journalism image provide by the Local Coordination Committees in Syria and released on Feb. 2, a Syrian rebel stands next to a destroyed government forces tank in Homs, central Syria. (Local Coordination Committees in Syria/AP)

Syria assault on Homs escalates. Does Assad think he has carte blanche now? (+video)

By Arthur Bright, Correspondent / 02.06.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues. Updated 11:01 a.m. Eastern time.

Shelling in the Syrian city of Homs killed at least another 17 people today, signaling that President Bashar al-Assad's regime saw Russia and China's vetoes of a UN Security Council resolution this weekend as a green light to crush the opposition. In response to the escalating violence in recent weeks, the US closed its embassy in Damascus today.

According to activists in the city, the Syrian military is firing shells and rockets at residential areas and a field hospital in Homs. A man named Omar in the Baba Amr neighborhood told BBC Radio in a telephone interview that the shelling began yesterday morning, but it is "more horrible now." A series of explosions can be heard in the background during the interview. 

Another resident of Homs, activist Majd Amer, made similar statements in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, saying that the shelling began in his neighborhood of Khaldiyeh at 3 a.m. "We did not sleep all night," he said, as explosions could be heard in the background. "The regime is committing organized crimes."

The Associated Press reports that the Local Coordination Committees (LCC) activist group and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights say that at least 17 people have died in the shelling. The Syrian National Council put the tally higher, with at least 50 dead, according to the Italian news wire AKI. Weekend reports citing the LCC originally claimed more than 200 dead from shelling in Homs on Friday, but the group later revised its estimates down to 55, the BBC reported.

The Syrian government has denied that it is shelling the city, and claims instead that "armed terrorist groups" are attacking residents.

Syrian allies Russia and China on Saturday vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to end the violence in Syria. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the vetoes a "travesty" and pushed for an international coalition to oust Assad through sanctions, arms embargoes, and humanitarian aid for Syrian citizens, the Wall Street Journal reported.

"Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people's right to have a better future," Mrs. Clinton said during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria on Sunday.

The Christian Science Monitor reported yesterday that analysts believe the vetoes would embolden the Assad regime to crack down and the opposition to move towards armed resistance. 

“The situation in Syria is going to escalate with greater bloodshed in the streets as a consequences of the vetoes which ended up giving the regime greater support,” Imad Salamey, associate professor of politics at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, told the Monitor.

The New York Times writes that the government indeed appeared to view the vetoes as supportive, as it hailed Russia and China's decision as a rejection of foreign intervention in Syria. A state newspaper also indicated that the government would step up its crackdown, as it promised to “restore what Syrians had enjoyed for decades.”

China denies that it was protecting the Syrian regime with its vote, reports Agence France-Presse. Foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told reporters that "China does not have its own selfish interest on the issue of Syria. We don't shelter anyone. We uphold justice on the Syrian issue."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also angrily rebuked critics of Moscow's decision to veto the UN measure, saying “There are some in the West who have given evaluations of the vote on Syria in the United Nations Security Council that sound, I would say, indecent and perhaps on the verge of hysterical. Those who get angry are rarely right.”

With Russia and China preventing any action through the UN Security Council, the US is looking for alternatives to protect the Syrian opposition, reports The New York Times. But experts warn that to do so, the US may be forced to give consent to arm them, increasing the risk of Syrian civil war and setting up a proxy war there, with US and Europe on the opposition's side and Iran and Russia backing Mr. Assad's regime.

Read entire post | Comments

In this November 2011 file photo, a smoke trail of a missile test-fired by the Israeli army as seen from the central Israeli town of Yavne. Israel's steady stream of warnings against Iran troubles Western leaders, who fear that Israel may launch unilateral attacks against Iran that could destabilize the Middle East and shatter the international coalition pressuring Iran to rein in its nuclear program. (Ilan Assayag/AP/File)

Israel's public campaign against Iran has West on edge

By Arthur Bright, Correspondent / 02.03.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Israeli officials have ratcheted up the volume insisting that Iran poses a great danger to Israel and the West, with top Israeli government and military officials issuing multiple warnings yesterday about the Iranian nuclear program. Israel's public campaign against Iran is fueling concerns that Israeli forces may launch a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities this year.

Haaretz reports that Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel's intelligence service Shin Bet, told a closed forum in Tel Aviv that Iran has attempted "three serious attacks" against Israeli interests in the past year in retaliation for the assassinations of four Iranian nuclear experts, which Tehran believes were executed by Israeli agents.

Although Israel denies being behind the murders, Mr. Cohen said, "It doesn't matter if it's true or not that Israel took out the nuclear scientists."

"A major, serious country like Iran cannot let this go on," he said. "They want to deter Israel and extract a price so that decision makers in Israel think twice before they order an attack on an Iranian scientist."

Elsewhere in Tel Aviv, Israeli vice prime minister and minister of strategic affairs Moshe Yaalon claimed that Iran was developing a new long-range missile that could reach the US eastern seaboard.  The Christian Science Monitor reports that if true, Yaalon's claim would mean Iran's missile program is much more advanced than previously thought. Separately, Israeli chief of military intelligence Gen. Aviv Kochavi said that Israel believed Iran has enough nuclear material to make four bombs.

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a Tel Aviv conference that the world "has no doubt that Iran's nuclear program is steadily nearing readiness." Bloomberg reports that he also argued that "there is widespread global understanding" that if sanctions do not stop the program, "there will arise the need of weighing an operation” to strike Iran.

The rising chorus in Israel has alarmed Western leaders, who fear that Israel may launch unilateral attacks against Iran that could destabilize the Middle East and shatter the international coalition pressuring Iran to rein in its nuclear program. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes Israel will strike in April, May, or June. (Mr. Panetta has declined to comment on Mr. Ignatius's column.) Similarly, British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said, "I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands," according to The Telegraph. 

The Associated Press reports that Israel's allies are working hard to dissuade Israel from such a path. But former US diplomat Dennis Ross,who has a very close relationship with Israeli government, told The Telegraph that Israeli officials may not feel restrained by opposition – even American opposition – to a unilateral attack against Iran. "The Israelis view this [Iranian threat] in existential terms, he said. "If the Israelis feel this is an existential threat it doesn't matter what anybody says to them. They could do it unilaterally."

In a column criticizing recent talk by the Canadian government alluding to Israeli military intervention against Iran, Montreal Gazette columnist Michael Den Tandt argues that it's highly unlikely Iran would ever consider using weapons of mass destruction against Israel.  "The reason for that is simple," he writes. "Were they to do so, they and their country would be destroyed."

Israel possesses an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. The United States possesses thousands, and could within a few hours turn all of Iran into a radioactive pyre. By what logic can anyone assume the Iranians would unilaterally deploy nukes if they had them?

Far more plausible is that, in seeking nuclear weapons, the Iranians intend to forever alter the balance of power in the Middle East, creating for themselves an insurance policy of the kind enjoyed by Pakistan, North Korea, India and others. North Korea, charter member of Bush's axis of evil, went nuclear and was not invaded. Saddam Hussein had no WMD and was deposed and hanged. Gadhafi gave up his WMD and was deposed and shot.

Neither Pakistan nor North Korea can be said to be stable, clearly. Would either country deploy a nuke, knowing the retaliation that would follow?

And why would Iran be any different?

Read entire post | Comments

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, left, speaks with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during a meeting of NATO defense ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Thursday, Feb. 2. (Virginia Mayo/AP)

Plan for early end to US combat role catches Afghan officials by surprise

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 02.02.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced yesterday that American troops in Afghanistan would step back from their combat role in Afghanistan as early as mid-2013, more than a year before the full withdrawal scheduled for 2014.

The announcement caught the Afghan government and Army by surprise, Reuters reports. "A decision to push this a year earlier throws out the whole transition plan. The transition has been planned against a timetable and this makes us rush all our preparations," a senior Afghan security official said. "If the Americans withdraw from combat, it will certainly have an effect on our readiness and training, and on equipping the police force," the official said, adding that the US did not inform Afghanistan ahead of the announcement.

The New York Times attributes the unexpectedly early end to US troops' combat role to the Obama administration's "eagerness" to end the second war it inherited from the Bush administration.

In his announcement, Mr. Panetta downplayed French President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to withdraw France's troops by the end of 2013, a year ahead of its NATO allies, the Times reports. His decision came after an Afghan soldier killed four French soldiers who were on a training mission – an action that has not been uncommon in the war there.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Panetta's decision was done to preempt any similar decisions from other NATO allies.

By announcing a specific timetable, US officials are hoping to head off a push by allies to pull out their forces more quickly. Public support for the war is falling in many countries, and with their economies struggling, governments are under pressure to trim their defense budgets.

With the expedited end to a combat role, US troops will turn primarily to training and advisory missions, similar to the way the withdrawal unfolded from Iraq, with the US focused on training Iraqi soldiers for more than a year before the last convoy left the country. Whether Afghan troops are ready to take on the central role is unclear – both the Army and police are "plagued by corruption, operational and personnel problems," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Afghan forces already have assumed control in Kabul, the capital, and some other areas, but those were already largely peaceful. The US and its allies retain military responsibility for the most violent parts of the country.

…

A senior Defense Department official traveling with Panetta said the US-led force "still needs to be there in robust fashion to back them up" until the end of 2014.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the "steady string" of attacks on Western troops by rogue Afghan soldiers and police is both undermining military cooperation and heightening concerns about a Taliban infiltration of both the police and Army. There have been 42 such attacks since 2007, leaving 70 troops dead and many more wounded.

Pentagon officials warn of the potential “insider threat” from Taliban infiltrators, who are particularly difficult to detect. “A successful infiltrator is more likely [to be] competent and experienced,” warned Pentagon testimony submitted to the committee.

As a result, Taliban insurgents impersonating Afghan security forces may inadvertently be given important jobs within their unit. This, in turn, may allow them to facilitate “insurgent efforts by providing intelligence on coalition force tactics or movement, or by targeting high-profile ANSF or Afghan government officials.”  

On top of those concerns, according to a NATO report leaked to the BBC, the Taliban still have substantial support among Afghans and receive assistance from Pakistani security services – an accusation Pakistan denied, the BBC reports. The report, based on on 27,000 interrogations with more than 4,000 captured Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other foreign fighters and civilians, states that Pakistan is aware of the location of several senior Taliban leaders.

The report also says that interest in joining the Taliban is on the rise among Afghans, including members of the government, and that the reduction of attacks in some parts of the country is a facade intended to hasten the withdrawal of coalition forces from the area so the Taliban can move in – often with the help of the police and Army.

Read entire post | Comments

Herman Nackaerts, Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is interviewed as he arrives after his flight from Iran at Vienna's Schwechat airport, Austria, Wednesday. (Ronald Zak/AP)

Iran calls IAEA visit a 'positive forward step' (+video)

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 02.01.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

As a UN nuclear agency team departed Iran Wednesday, team leader Herman Nackaerts said the agency and Iran are "committed to resolve all the outstanding issues" and that a follow-up visit is in the "very near future." The visit was the International Atomic Energy Agency's first since it released a report in which it charged that Iran had conducted nuclear weapons work in the past, setting off a wave of international actions against the Islamic Republic. 

The IAEA team held three days of discussions with Iranian officials about Iran's nuclear program, but did not visit any nuclear sites. The discussions were Iran's first formal opportunity to rebut the weapon development allegations, which it has previously dismissed.

Reuters reports that in the past, Western diplomats have accused Iran of using dialogue to stall while it continues work with its nuclear program.

While Mr. Nackaerts did not speak after the trip about the content of the discussions, prior to the trip diplomats said that the main goal was to overcome resistance to discussing allegations that Iran previously pursued a nuclear weapons program, the Associated Press reports. Iran insists that its nuclear program is intended for electricity generation.

Any progress on the issue would be significant. Iran has refused to discuss the alleged weapons experiments for more than three years, saying they are based on “fabricated documents” provided by a “few arrogant countries” — a phrase authorities in Iran often use to refer to the United States and its allies.

The IAEA team was seeking progress on its efforts to talk to key Iranian scientists suspected of working on a weapons program. They also hoped to break down opposition to their plans to inspect documents related to nuclear work and secure commitments from Iranian authorities to allow future visits.

The timing of this visit made it a critical meeting – another IAEA report is coming out in a few weeks, the US and European Union have both imposed unprecedentedly strong sanctions on Iran targeting its central bank and its oil exports, and talk of a US-Israeli war against Iran has gained traction. Iran indicated it would be more cooperative than it has been in the past, the Monitor reports.

CNN reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi called the talks "a positive forward step" and said that had the delegation wanted to inspect the nuclear sites, Iran would have complied, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

Despite a UN requirement that Iran put on hold all enrichment activity until it addresses the IAEA's concerns, Mr. Salehi announced earlier this week that in "coming months" it would turn its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium into fuel for its "small medical reactor" in Tehran, the Monitor reports. The process is a difficult one requiring "significant technical know-how."

Meanwhile, discussion in Iran about stopping its oil exports to "some" countries continues. A parliamentary debate on whether to halt exports to the European Union, which approved an embargo on Iranian oil earlier this month, has been postponed, Reuters reports.

Iran's counter-embargo would halt oil exports to the EU long before it intends to stop importing Iranian oil. EU member states have been given several months to comply with the embargo in order to avoid sending any shocks to their fragile economies. An earlier end to Iranian oil could be very damaging to some European countries.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

Read entire post | Comments

In this 2010 file photo, a US Predator drone flies over the moon above Kandahar Air Field, southern Afghanistan. President Obama publicly acknowledged US drone attacks in Pakistan during a Q&A Monday. (Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/File)

Obama admits 'worst-kept secret': US flies drones over Pakistan

By Ariel Zirulnick, Staff writer / 01.31.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

President Obama publicly acknowledged the covert US drone program in Pakistan during a Q&A Monday – the first public admission of what CNN described as "the worst kept secret in Washington and Pakistan."

The US has kept quiet about the program partially for the sake of the Pakistani government, which publicly and vociferously condemns the program because of strong public opposition at home, but still permits the strikes. The drones target Al Qaeda and Taliban militants based in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the Afghan border. 

Aside from a statement from Pakistan's foreign ministry saying that the drone attacks are "unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable," according to Pakistan's Geo News, there has so far been little reaction to the disclosure in Pakistani media, which is usually quick to condemn drone attacks.

Obama's acknowledgement came in response to a question during the Q&A in a Google+ video chat room interview, Monday. 

"A lot of these strikes have been in the FATA, and going after Al Qaeda suspects who are up in very tough terrain on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military actions than the one we're already engaging in," he said, according to CNN.

Obama defended the program, saying it had “not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and that it was “important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash," Agence France-Presse reports. According to the Washington-based New America Foundation, at least 1,715 people (and possibly many more) have been killed in Pakistan by drones in the past eight years.

The drone program was brought to a temporary halt in November, after NATO forces killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at a border outpost, mistaking them for militants, but resumed this year.

Some officials believe less secrecy is actually preferred because the US could better explain its decisions. Amid strained US-Pakistan relations in the wake of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year, the US has been more deferential to Pakistan over the use of drones, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Proponents of more disclosure inside the administration and the military argue US secrecy has fueled charges in Pakistan that the drone strikes frequently kill civilians. They say releasing at least some details about the operations will help deflect criticism.

According to officials, changes were made to the drone program last year to give greater weight to diplomatic considerations, including relations with Pakistan, in deciding when to launch strikes. 

The New York Times notes that although the use of drones in Pakistan has been covert – unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq – intense public interest and the inability to completely hide the explosions have made US officials willing to discuss the drone program on condition of anonymity. The Obama administration has substantially expanded the drone program, although according to tallies from Agence France-Presse, their use declined last year from 101 in 2010 to 64 in 2011.

On Jan. 28, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani condemned the resumption of US drone strikes earlier this month and expressed concern about the "trust deficit" between the two countries, Pakistan's The Express Tribune reports. 

“Drones are counter-productive. We have very ably isolated militants from the local tribes. When there are drone attacks that creates sympathy for them again,” Gilani told reporters in Davos.

“It makes the job of the political leadership and the military very difficult. We have never allowed drone attacks and we have always maintained that they are unacceptable, illegal and counterproductive.”

Read entire post | Comments

Smoke rises from the suburb of Erbeen in Damascus, January 29. Around 2,000 Syrian troops backed by tanks launched an assault to retake Damascus suburbs from rebels on Sunday, activists said, a day after the Arab League suspended its monitoring mission in Syria because of worsening violence. (REUTERS)

End of Arab League observer mission to Syria opens door to renewed clashes

By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent / 01.30.12

• A daily summary of global reports on security issues.

Just a day after the Arab League suspended its monitoring mission to Syria, the nation has erupted into what some observers have called the “fiercest violence” in months.

After two days of fighting that came within a couple miles of the heart of Damascus, government forces reportedly regained control of the city's restive eastern suburbs, but the violence and fighting has spread to other areas of the country.

“Activists say it is the fiercest violence they have witnessed in months,” said Al Jazeera’s Anita McNaught. “There are fires burning all over Syria, some say almost too many for the army to deploy all over the place.”

The state-owned Syrian Arab News Agency reported that an “armed terrorist group” attacked a gas pipeline in Homs, one of the focal points of the violence since the uprising began in March. Syrian government officials often attribute violence to foreign terrorists.

The ongoing violence led to renewed calls for international action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Many observers say it is unlikely his regime can endure the current uprising, but if no international action is taken, it will be a long and violent battle before Assad's government is removed from power.

“The Syrian regime headed by Bashar Assad is doomed in the long run, but is likely to last longer than most believe,” writes Joshua Landis, director of the University of Oklahoma’s Center for Middle East Studies in a blog for Bitterlemons. “So long as the Syrian military leadership remains united, the opposition remains fragmented, and foreign powers remain on the sidelines, the Assad regime is likely to survive, but all three of these elements are changing, even if gradually, in the favor of the opposition.”

This week the international community will take one of its most aggressive steps against Syria so far. The United Nations Security Council will consider a draft resolution calling for Assad's resignation, reports CNN.

However, the resolution may not go any further – it faces opposition from Russia, an ally of Syria who has steadily resisted UN efforts to take more action there and holds veto power on the council.

International efforts and those of the Syrian opposition in exile have offered little hope to those suffering from the increased violence, writes Peter Harling, project director with the Middle East Program of the International Crisis Group in a blog for Foreign Policy. Without any serious efforts that provide tangible improvement, or at least the promise of it, the opposition is likely to turn to violence to achieve its goals, he writes. 

As more Syrians come to believe that their collective efforts are in vain, that the world has forsaken them, and that the regime can only be fought with its own methods, the nature of the struggle could be transformed into something more fragmented, narrow-minded, and brutal. Those who have given up on everything but God will be easy recruits for the Islamists. The logistical needs of armed groups will offer opportunities for whoever is willing to sustain them. Communal rifts may further deepen. Violence predictably will serve as a vehicle for the advancement of the more thuggish components within each community. The creative, responsible, and forward-looking activists within the protest movement could soon feel overpowered – many already do.

With the end of the Arab League mission yesterday, any restraint by government forces exercised while the observers were on the ground seems to have disappeared. On Monday, a day after the Arab League observer mission suspended its work, Syrian activists reported 60 deaths. There were more than 50 military funerals over the weekend. Monday’s fighting was heavily focused around the capital, but violence has also been reported in Homs, Hama, Idlib, Deraa, and in other places, reports the BBC.

“If the Arab League observers had inhibited Syrian government forces from attacking residential areas, any such constraints now seem to be thrown to the winds,” reports the BBC’s Jim Muir. “The government actions reported by activists in the eastern suburbs of Damascus and in Rankous, just to the north of the capital, reinforce the sharp escalation cited by the league as grounds for suspending its observer mission.”

Read entire post | Comments

In Syria, heavy fighting reaches outskirts of capital

By Kristen Chick, Correspondent / 01.29.12

Syria’s military sent tanks to neighborhoods on the outskirts of Damascus Sunday in an attempt to quell the most intense fighting yet seen so close to the capital, one day after the Arab League announced it would suspend its observation mission.

The spike in violence throughout the country – rights groups say more than 100 people have been killed since Thursday – comes days before the UN Security Council plans to vote on a resolution calling for President Bashar Al Assad to step down. The UN says more than 5,400 people have died so far in Assad’s crackdown on an uprising against his regime.

The Associated Press reports that nine people died over the last day in clashes on the eastern edges of Damascus. Rights activists said that three people died in fighting in the suburb of Kfar Batna, and reported heavy shelling in that area as well as nearby suburbs. The state news agency, meanwhile, reported that an “armed terrorist group” bombed a bus carrying army personnel, killing six people and injuring six others. The state news agency said the bomb was a remotely detonated.

The government attack on the suburbs began after the Free Syrian Army, largely made up of defectors from Syria’s military, occupied the area, reports the BBC. According to activists, the assault involved more than 2,000 troops and 50 tanks. Rami Abdul Rahman, head of the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told the BBC that “the Syrian regime is trying to finish the uprising militarily now that the case is being taken to the United Nations."

Head of the Arab League Nabil Al Arabi announced yesterday that the League’s observers would immediately suspend their nearly five-week monitoring mission because of “a severe deterioration of the situation and the continued use of violence.” The mission was intended to observe whether Syria was complying with an Arab League plan adopted in November to end the violence. The New York Times reports that Mr. Arabi blamed the Syrian government for the violence, saying it had decided to escalate the crackdown. The Times reports that the observers ventured on Saturday to the outskirts of Rankous, which was nearly empty after five days of government shelling and fighting. But they turned back after a warning from army officers that rebels might use explosives.

The monitoring mission has faced criticism of its effectiveness for weeks. Now that it has ended, pressure is increasing for the Security Council to take action. The Syrian National Council, the main opposition group, sent a delegation to the UN to “demand international protection for civilians,” reports the Financial Times. Adding to the urgency, the conflict in Syria is becoming increasingly militarized, with army defectors and some opposition activists using arms to fight the government in what increasingly looks like a civil war. A member of the Syrian National Council expressed concern Thursday about the armed groups, saying they must work together with the political opposition, reports the Monitor.  

The Security Council is due to vote on Jan. 31 on a resolution that would affirm an Arab League transition plan. Russia, an ally of Syria, opposes the resolution. Bloomberg reports that a draft resolution discussed on Jan. 27 changed language that had previously called on Assad to step down and for Syria to hold free elections, replacing it with a call for Assad to hand authority to his deputy and the formation of a national unity government.

Read entire post | Comments