Sri Lanka: The Next Phase of the Crisis

UPDATE: Gethin Chamberlain writes in this morning's The Guardian of London on reports coming out of the camps, including claims that 15,000 people died in the last three months of fighting.

Understandably, most of the US and British media focused yesterday on the Sri Lankan Government's military victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the deaths of LTTE leaders including (probably) Velupillai Prabhakaran. Some, such as The Washington Post and The Times of London added calls for a "political process that is fully inclusive and democratic".

Today, however, some outlets are noting the immediate humanitarian (and longer-term political) issue: the more than 250,000 refugees now in overcrowded camps. The United Nations Children's Fund has demanded access to the shelters: ""People are arriving into camps sick, malnourished and some with untended wounds of war....Water and sanitation needs are critical."

On 5 May, Britain's Channel 4 aired a video report on the situation in one of the camps (secretly filmed before the arrival of another 65,000 people in recent days.) Below that is an article by Andrew Buncombe of The Independent of London, published last Sunday, on the plight of the civilians, including at least 50,000 children.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN4e9ZbxP1s[/youtube]

No one is safe as Tigers fight to the death

Some stare, others frown. Some smile at the camera, though there is remarkably little for them to smile about. As these youngsters trapped in Sri Lanka's war zone stand in line with their bowls and cups, waiting patiently for soup, there are reports that food is running low and that children are dying almost every day from sickness and injury. All the while the fighting continues. Shells explode, gunfire rattles.

These children are just some of the victims of a conflict that is all but hidden from view of the outside world. Unofficial UN estimates suggest 150,000 people are still trapped in the battle zone, confined to a tiny strip of land measuring no more than 7.7 square miles that, with all the terrible Orwellian irony of war, has become known as the "no-fire zone". In truth, but for a brief two-day pause over the Sri Lankan new year, there is shelling and artillery fire every day. Of these civilians, an estimated 50,000 are children.

These photographs and others, taken inside the war zone and passed to The Independent on Sunday, give just the barest insight into the misery being endured by the trapped civilians in what would otherwise be a tropical paradise. Seemingly used as human shields by the rebel fighters and unable to leave, they are caught between two unyielding forces. Other, more gruesome photographs taken inside the zone's basic medical facilities appear to confirm reports that civilians are regularly being killed and injured. The UN says 4,500 civilians have been killed in the past three months. A senior envoy who recently visited Sri Lanka said that figure was rising daily.

A swelling chorus of international voices has called on the rebels to release the civilians and on the government to enact a longer ceasefire. Foreign Secretary David Miliband said last night that he was "gravely concerned" by the continuing conflict. "The British Government maintains its calls for an immediate ceasefire in Sri Lanka," he said. It is the 50,000 children trapped in the war zone for whom concern is greatest. Many mothers are too weak and enfeebled to produce breast-milk. Diarrhoea, always the affliction of the weakest, is taking lives almost every day. Health officials inside the war zone have said that malnutrition is an increasing danger for the children - though their claims are denied by the government.

The international aid community, parts of which have until now preferred to express their concerns privately rather than seek a head-on confrontation with the government, is increasingly speaking out. Paul Castello, head of the Red Cross in Sri Lanka, said last night: "We have 100 staff trapped in there. These people are exposed in the middle of a battlefield, so every day people are dying from bullets and shells. There are no medical supplies, very little food and hardly any drinking water. There is no soap and no toilets. The only shelter is from tarpaulins or tents. The children have diarrhoea, chicken pox, respiratory infections. The Red Cross has evacuated 10,000 people from the conflict zone since February."

The civilians are caught in the bloody endgame of one of the world's longest-running conflicts. After three decades of civil war between government troops and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), President Mahinda Rajapaksa last year undertook to crush the rebels, who are seeking an independent homeland for the Tamil community to escape what they say is widespread discrimination.

Since January 2008, when a faltering, internationally brokered ceasefire agreement officially ended, the rebel Tamil fighters - waging a brutal war using suicide attacks against civilian and military targets - have been pushed back. Late last year, the de facto LTTE capital, Kilinochchi, fell, and the rebels have been increasingly squeezed by government troops. The rebel army, which once controlled the entire north of Sri Lanka and parts of the east, is now confined to a small strip of land on the coast at Mullaittivu in the country's far north-east.

It is in Mullaittivu that the civilians are trapped - and the rebels are refusing to release them. Having once promoted themselves as the legitimate and sole defenders of the Tamil population, the fighters are now using those same civilians to protect themselves against what would otherwise most probably be a final, crushing onslaught by the government troops. The UN said it learned that during the two-day ceasefire earlier this week, LTTE fighters shot six civilians trying to leave the war zone. Other civilians may be too afraid to leave.

Some of the beleaguered civilians are living inside concrete buildings, but many others find themselves confined to squatter camps on the beach and in the jungle. They hide from the blistering daytime sun under plastic sheets and tarpaulins. When the tropical rains come, as they have done recently, the zone is turned into a filthy, flooded quagmire. In a land that has suffered months of war, they are dependent on food shipments from the government and the UN. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is the only aid group with regular access to the area, all others having been forced to withdraw last September. "There is a lack of food. Sanitation is abysmal," said one despairing aid worker based in Colombo.

The most compelling evidence has come from two government health officials working in the area who stayed on after the fighting intensified - a rare source of first-hand information about the situation inside the war zone.

Speaking yesterday by phone from the area's makeshift hospital, one of them, Dr T Sathyamurthy, said he believed as many as 300,000 people were trapped and that the fighting was continuing. "Today we can hear the gunfire and shelling. Yesterday, another 80 civilian casualties were brought to the hospital. Today at around 5.30am we heard the sound of artillery fire. We don't know who is firing," he said.

He said there was a lack of food and that government shipments were insufficient, something that represented a particularly pressing danger to the war zone's children. "The small children are dependent on their mothers' milk. They cannot eat rice or dahl," he said. "In this area mothers usually feed their children up to two years, but they are saying they do not have enough breast-milk."

Asked about government claims that he was unable to tell the truth because he was living under the threat of the LTTE, he responded: "I am a government official. We are the eyewitnesses. We are talking about the situation that the government is not accepting ... The main problem is that the Tamils are voiceless." He said that while some in the government may not approve of the doctors speaking out, they decided they had no choice. "We want to talk about the situation. We saw that thousands died and more were injured. There is no free media. That is why we decided to talk about the situation," he said.

The government rejects the reports of malnutrition. Athula Kahandaliyanage, the Health Secretary, said the claims were "scientifically" not credible. He referred to a report quoting Dr Sathyamurthy saying that 69 per cent of children below the age of five in the war zone were malnourished, and said that previously the highest recorded rate of child malnutrition in Sri Lanka was 24 per cent. "Malnutrition is not something that can happen overnight," he said.

Asked about the plight of the children and the calls for a ceasefire, Dr Kahandaliyanage said: "We are very much concerned about their safety, their nutrition and health ... The whole international community should just call on the LTTE to allow these people out." Yet journalists are banned from visiting except on a handful of military-organised tours, and the ICRC is the sole aid organisation allowed to operate there.

On Friday, with no sign of any let-up in the fighting, Sam Zarifi of Amnesty International called for a ceasefire and for the LTTE not to allow civilians to be used as a buffer. He said: "The government of Sri Lanka needs to allow independent monitors to ensure that civilians feel safe to come out of the Tamil Tiger-controlled areas."

Meanwhile, the thousands of children of the war zone stand in line for their bowls of kanchichi, a traditional soup made from rice, coconut milk and a pinch of salt. It doesn't seem like very much.

Video and Transcript: Clinton Press Briefing on Aid to Pakistan

Related Post: That US Strategy in Pakistan - A Bit of Money for Two Million Refugees



SECRETARY CLINTON: I appreciate the opportunity to provide some information about what our government and the people of the U.S. are doing with respect to the humanitarian crisis that is affecting Pakistan.

The last time I was in this room, on May 6th, I spoke about the United States' commitment to stand by Pakistan's people and the democratically elected government as they work to restore security in their country. And President Obama is determined to match our words with our actions, because Pakistan's government is leading the fight against extremists that threaten the future of their country and our collective security.

At the same time, though, Pakistan is facing a major humanitarian crisis. Approximately 2 million people have fled their homes, and Pakistan's government, their military, and relief organizations are working to meet the needs of these displaced persons. So many are finding refuge with family members, or in schools or mosques; they are relying on the generosity of relatives and friends. And I'm confident that Pakistan's institutions and citizens will succeed in confronting this humanitarian challenge if the international community steps up and provides the support that is needed.

So today I am announcing that the people of the United States are responding to a request for assistance from the government of Pakistan with more than $100 million in humanitarian support. Now, this money comes on top of almost $60 million that the United States has provided since last August to help Pakistanis who have been affected by the conflicts, and in addition to the other funding for Pakistan that we are already seeking from the Congress.

Providing this assistance is not only the right thing to do, but we believe it is essential to global security and the security of the United States, and we are prepared to do more as the situation demands.

The United States has a history of working with the Pakistani authorities to alleviate suffering. When an earthquake struck the country in 2005, we moved quickly to assist. Altogether, the United States has provided more than $3.4 billion since 2002 to alleviate suffering and promote economic growth, education, health and good governance in Pakistan.

A U.S. Disaster Assistance Response Team -- a so-called DART team -- and embassy personnel from our embassy in Islamabad are on the ground working with and supporting Pakistani authorities in evaluating needs for shelter, food, health, water and sanitation services. And supplies from the U.S. are already flowing to Pakistan. USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance has delivered 30,000 family relief kits, 5,000 tents, FM radios, and generators to provide both light and water.

At the request of the government of Pakistan's special support group, the U.S. military is providing water trucks, halal MREs, and large tents within environment units for hot weather.

At the same time, one of our guiding principles of this assistance package is that it should be more than just the delivery of supplies. It should also be an investment in the people and the economy of Pakistan. So a significant portion of our pledged food aid will go to buy Pakistani grain in local markets, taking advantage of the country's bumper crop of wheat. And we will work to create quick-impact job programs that will put Pakistanis to work, making supplies that will help their countrymen who have been forced to flee the fighting. Our approach to the aid reflects our conviction that all Pakistanis have a stake in resolving this crisis.

In addition to supporting the work of Pakistan's democratically elected government, we are coordinating closely with the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. And we appreciate the work that U.N. agencies, the ICRC, and nongovernmental organizations are already doing.

The United States is also deploying new tools to meet these challenges. We are working to support the Pakistani government in launching a text-messaging system that will alert local communities to assistance efforts and will help family members keep in touch.

We have been hard at work in this area for a number of weeks, looking for ways that we can get communications directly to people on the ground. And we know that a lot of the Pakistanis who are being displaced by the conflict have cell phones. So we're going to try to reach directly to them, not only to give them information that will be of assistance to them, but also to provide a way of connecting them up with other people, with the military, with the governing authorities.

Now, Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word "swat" -- to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.

President Obama and I hope that individuals who have fled the conflict will be able to return home quickly, safely, and on a voluntary basis. Some have already gone back to their communities. And as they do, the United States stands ready to help Pakistan's government support displaced persons as they rebuild their lives.

But as long as this crisis persists, our assistance will continue. We face a common threat, a common challenge, and now a common task. And we know that the work ahead is difficult, but we have seen an enormous amount of support and determination out of the Pakistani government, military, and people in the last weeks to tackle the extremist challenge. And we're confident that with respect to the humanitarian challenge the people of Pakistan and their government, as well as the international community, can come together and forge not only the assistance that is needed, but stronger bonds for the years ahead.

So I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, how much of this money goes directly to U.S.-run programs that are there where it's sort of the U.S. is in charge of how the money gets disseminated, and how much of it goes to the Pakistani government? And then can you also talk about President Clinton's role with Haiti?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, with respect to the money, the money is going primarily to international assistance efforts that the United States is deeply involved in supporting and helping to coordinate. The top United Nations disaster experts are either on the ground or shortly will be on the ground. We also have a very good working relationship with the Pakistani military coming out of our earthquake experience with them. And we believe that the person who's been put in charge, who was in charge of the earthquake relief, is especially well suited for that.

So we're going to be providing a lot of in-kind contributions and we're going to be providing financial support to multilateral organizations and NGOs. And as I said, we're going to try to be creative in buying locally produced goods and labor, so that the people of Pakistan have a stake in solving this humanitarian crisis. So it's a multitude of approaches, Chuck, and we think that's the smartest way to go.

QUESTION: But not much of it actually goes directly to the government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: It's just mostly -- okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes, that's right.

Well, with respect to Haiti, we're very pleased that the United Nations is taking such an affirmative role in trying to assist the people of Haiti. They have not yet recovered from the four hurricanes of last year. This is a high priority not only for the U.N., but also for the Obama administration. And we think that Ban Ki-moon has chosen a high-profile envoy to raise the visibility of the needs of the people of Haiti. And it's the kind of partnership that we're looking for across the board.

We had already begun putting a team together, led by my Chief of Staff and Counselor, Cheryl Mills, to harness the support of the United States government to assist Haiti. And this is going to be an added bit of leverage and focus for us that we can all work on together.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary. How much money do you expect to raise through these $5 increments from text messages? And can you really improve the situation in the Swat Valley at $5 increments? And secondly, what does the United States expect in return for this $100 million?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we can do a lot to improve the conditions of the displaced people coming out of the conflict areas. I'm hoping that we'll have a big response to the text messaging. Just think if a million people in the United States gave at least $5, that's $5 million. And that would be a significant contribution from ordinary citizens, just people who care about what's happening.

We're enlisting the Pakistani American communities. One of the results of our trilateral meetings has been a commitment to help assist Pakistani Americans to establish a 501(c)3 that will solicit contributions from the Diaspora, and then be able to provide that money for this kind of assistance.

So I think it's important on the financial front, but equally important is enlisting people-to-people diplomacy and assistance, which is something that we believe very strongly in. We don't want this just to be government to government. We want Americans weighing in to try to help, and we think this does that.

What we're looking for is what we're seeing, the kind of commitment from the Pakistani government and the military to go after the extremists who threaten the safety and security of Pakistanis and of the nation. And I've been encouraged by the very strong positions that have been taken across the political spectrum in support of the military actions. And that's why it's important that we step up now and help on the humanitarian front.

QUESTION: What assurance do you have that our assistance will not go to expand their nuclear power and arsenal? And what brought it center stage? We've been helping Pakistan for years and years and years, poured a lot of money into it. Why now -- I mean, I don't say why now -- I know the challenge of extremists. But what is it that that has been broken down?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first I have to say how honored I was to share the podium and the stage with Helen Thomas last week at the NYU graduation ceremonies -- (laughter) -- where we were both given honorary degrees, and in Yankee Stadium, which was a pretty exciting experience.

You know, Helen, I think that it is fair to say that our policy toward Pakistan over the last 30 years has been incoherent. I don't know any other word to use. We came in in the '80s and helped to build up the Mujahideen to take on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis were our partners in that. Their security service and their military were encouraged and funded by the United States to create the Mujahideen in order to go after the Soviet invasion and occupation.

The Soviet Union fell in 1989, and we basically said, thank you very much; we had all kinds of problems in terms of sanctions being imposed on the Pakistanis. Their democracy was not secure and was constantly at risk of and often being overtaken by the military, which stepped in when it appeared that democracy could not work.

And so I think that when we ask that question it is fair to apportion responsibility to the Pakistanis, but it's also fair to ask ourselves what have we done and how have we done it over all of these years, and what role do we play in the situation that the Pakistanis currently confront.

I believe that what President Obama is doing with our new approach toward Pakistan is qualitatively different than anything that has been tried before. It basically says we support the democratically elected government, but we have to have a relationship where we are very clear and transparent with one another; where we have the kind of honest exchanges that have come out of our trilateral meetings, where we're sitting across the table and we're saying, what do you intend to do about what we view as an extremist threat to your country, which by the way, also threatens us.

And so in the last week I think we've seen an answer, which is very encouraging. And, therefore, it is our responsibility to support the democratically elected government, to be a source of advice and counsel where requested, but also to step in with aid that can try to make this government as successful as possible in delivering results for the people of Pakistan. That's what we are engaged in.

Now, we're doing this because we believe that the future of Pakistan is extremely important to the security of the United States. If we did not believe that I wouldn't be standing here, the President would not be directing us.

QUESTION: Why do you believe that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, because we think that the advance of extremism is a threat to our security; that al Qaeda and their extremist allies are intent upon attacking not only our friends and allies in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, but our homeland and American citizens and interests around the world. And as the President has said, our goal, coming out of our strategic review of Afghanistan and Pakistan, was to defeat and disrupt and dismantle the al Qaeda network.

We have seen al Qaeda driven out of Afghanistan to find refuge in the mountains of Pakistan. I don't think anyone doubts their continuing efforts to plot against us. They have not given up on their desire to inflict damage, harm and murder on the United States of America. That is how we in this administration view the threat coming from al Qaeda and their allies. We have walked away from Pakistan before, with consequences that have not been in the best interests of our security, and we are determined that we're going to forge a partnership with the people of Pakistan and their democratically elected government against extremism -- and that's what we're pursuing.

QUESTION: So what is the U.S. role, actually? Is it just transferring money, or is there also going to be a physical presence on the ground, and in particular, any boots on the ground in Pakistan to deliver this aid?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Chip, we're doing what the Pakistan has requested of us. Obviously our military will be delivering a lot of these supplies, but they'll be handing them off to the Pakistani military and to the relief groups, both international and non-governmental organizations. And we think that's the appropriate way to proceed.

We were very pleased that the government appointed General Nadeem Ahmad to head up these efforts, because he directed civilian relief efforts after the earthquake of 2005. He was extremely capable and produced positive results, and where necessary asked for help not only from the United States but from other international groups. And that's what we're expecting will happen this time.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea what the numbers of military would be involved in this? And is there any danger that they could get caught in the crossfire here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no. We are not engaged in any military action whatsoever, and we are not engaged in the delivery of any civilian relief. We are there to facilitate the Pakistani military and the international and NGO relief agencies to be able to do that.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madam Secretary, are you worried the Pakistanis might abandon the fight against the Taliban without this aid? And is the lack of this kind of aid, in your opinion, the reason that former President Musharraf did not prosecute the war against the Taliban as efficiently as the current government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Wendell, I can't speculate on why former President Musharraf did what he did while he was in power. I just know that at the end of his time in office, the extremists had found safe havens in Pakistan and were stronger than they had been when he came into office, in terms of their willingness to make alliance with al Qaeda as part of what we view as a terrorist network -- a syndicate, if you will.

But what I do believe is that the current democratically elected government and the opposition has recognized the serious threat posed by the Taliban's advance out of their usual territory, moving closer and closer to Islamabad. And I am very encouraged by the comments that the Prime Minister has made, that opposition leaders like former Prime Minister Sharif has made. There is a real national mood change on the part of the Pakistani people that we are watching and obviously encouraged by. And I think it has to do with a recognition that this is no longer about a part of their country that seems quite distant from population centers, like Lahore or Islamabad or Karachi. That this is a potential direct threat to their way of life in Pakistan.

The beating of the young woman that was videotaped had an electric effect on people throughout Pakistan. I've talked to a number of Pakistanis and Pakistani Americans who said, "We were shocked by that." You know, sometimes it just takes a visual image or an act to break through your everyday concerns about the economy and politics as usual, and I think that's happened in Pakistan.

The humanitarian relief is the right thing to do, no matter what the politics. People are in need, they're having to leave their homes and their possessions. We hope that they'll be able to return home quickly if the military not only clears the Taliban from their communities but also holds that ground with a combination of military and policing forces.

But this is a tough battle and I don't think anybody should underestimate how difficult it is for the Pakistani military to wage this battle in very challenging terrain. I don't know how many of you have either flown over or visited that terrain, but this is hard. And that's why what the Pakistanis are doing now deserves our full support. They're doing it. And we're encouraging them to do it because we think it's in their interests, but we also believe it's in the interests of our long-term struggle against extremism and, in particular, the al Qaeda network.

That US Strategy in Pakistan: A Bit of Money for Two Million Refugees

Video and Transcript: Clinton Press Briefing on Aid to Pakistan

Yesterday afternoon I drafted the passage, for an article for an electronic journal:

Even if one credited Obama's general proclamation of “a comprehensive strategy that doesn’t just rely on bullets or bombs, but also relies on agricultural specialists, on doctors, on engineers", military tactics undercut rather than supported that conception. In US-backed operations, civilians --- if they are recognised by Washington --- are offered not progress but sacrifice. As I write, up to 75 percent of the 1.3 million residents of Pakistan's Swat Valley are now refugees.

I have to make a revision to that paragraph: the latest estimates are that 2 million people, in and beyond the Swat Valley, have been displaced. However, my general point was powerfully endorsed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, in a press briefing, pledged $110 million in US funds ($100 million from the State Department and $10 million from the Department of Defense) for "this major humanitarian crisis". She added, "Providing this assistance is not only the right thing to do, but we believe it is essential to global security and the security of the United States, and we are prepared to do more as the situation demands."

So let me get this straight. The Pakistani military, pushed by the US Government, launches operations that prompt 2 million people to flee --- an exodus rivalled in Pakistan's history only during the 1948 partition from India --- but this forced homelessness becomes an example for the "civilian-led" dimension of the Obama Administration's strategy? Strikes me that is akin to the arsonist proving his merits by offering a few blankets after the fire has been set.

Of course, this crisis is not just a one-way affair: the Taliban's activities have also prompted residents to hide or take flight. And the crisis is mitigated, if you can mitigate the indefinite loss of a home, because an estimated 90 percent of the displaced are staying with families and friends rather than in camps.

I am still not convinced, however, that the 2 million will be testifying to Washington's long-term aim of economic progress and security if and when they hear Clinton's words about the power of US benevolence and technology:

Now, Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word 'swat' -- to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.

The Netanyahu Meeting: Obama Wins Battle, Loses War

Latest Post: Israel-Palestine - Obama's Two-Week Window
Assessing Netanyahu-Obama: Israel, Iran, and Palestine
Video and Transcript : Obama-Netanyahu News Conference

Enduring America, 16 May: "What President Obama needs now is not an Iranian concession but an Israeli one. If Netanyahu holds fast and does not open up the possibility of “genuine” talks with the Palestinian Authority, including discussions of political status as well as economic development and security, then Obama’s message — launched on Inauguration Day — of a new day in the Middle East is looking shaky."

Obama didn't get it. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his high-profile visit and engaged in two hours of discussions with the President. And after those talks, there was no sign that Netanyahu had given any ground on the US showpiece demand: two-state negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

And Obama, or at least his advisors, may not get it. That very public refusal of the Israeli Prime Minister is likely to damage, if not sink, far more than the American position on Israel-Palestine. The bigger casualty may be Obama's strategy towards the Middle East and the Islamic world.

The outcome is the result both of flaws in the Administration's Palestine approach, which has never been comprehensive but rests on the narrower illusion that peace rests on an agreement between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority and --- more importantly in the short term --- the tactical error of announcing an Obama talk from Cairo on 4 June.

Up to two weeks ago, the Administration was not suffering from an approach which was making little headway but still had the superficial gloss of "engagement". With little possibility of an Israel-Palestine breakthrough, Obama and Co. could do the minimum --- keep the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas propped up and thus keep Hamas as arm's distance --- while maintaining the priority of the US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Indeed, Obama's success yesterday was connected with "Af-Pak". By blocking Netanyahu's demand that Washington break off talks with Tehran, the President ensured that Iran was kept in play as the US sought co-operation for its military campaign in Afghanistan. He could wave good-bye to Bibi and return to the central crisis for his Administration.

The only problem is that by yesterday, in symbolism if not substance, Obama had given himself another Presidential talk: Get an Israel-Palestine Settlement, Save the World.

When Obama takes the podium in Egypt in two weeks' time, it will be the fourth time that he has put out his unclenched fist to the Arab and Islamic worlds. The Inaugural Address, the interview on Al-Arabiya, and the speech from Ankara were generally received as the since words of a US President who wanted to rebuild America's relations --- not just political but cultural and ideological --- with countries and peoples in the Middle East and beyond.

Now, however, almost five months have elapsed since the Gaza War, two since a new Israeli Government took office. Inevitably, the question emerges --- especially since the US is putting Palestine First back at Netanyahu's Israel First --- so what, in substance rather than rhetoric, is going to be done?

This isn't to say that Palestine is everyone's political priority. However, in part because of history, in part because of the Gaza War, and in large part because it has become a touchstone for justice and legitimacy, other Governments have to pay heed to it.

So, for example, up to December 2008, Syria was looking towards direct talks with Israel on political and economic issues. Then Tel Aviv chose to launch the Gaza attack. Now, although the Obama Administration has tried to restart the process with Damascus, Palestine stands in the way. Netanyahu has effectively said, Iran First, Then Palestine, Then Maybe Syria. Meanwhile, Damascus concentrates on bolstering its regional position after its withdrawal from Lebanon, building links not only in the Middle East but with Turkey and Iran.

Saudi Arabia, whose 2002 plan for Israel-Palestine talks was loudly rebuffed by the Bush Administration, also hangs back. Why, given internal instability and its interest in other conflicts such as the Pakistani situation, expend political capital when Washington has committed itself to leading the way?

So instead the Arab point man for the Israeli-Palestinian, and indeed a supposed Arab-Israeli, detente is King Abdullah of Jordan. Whatever his altruism in serving this cause, it also repays the US for the aid necessary to prop up the Jordanian economy. Never mind that the grand notion of an Islamic agreement with Tel Aviv, especially the notion that Israel can be recognised while Palestine is not, is still in the realm of fantasy: someone has to go through the motions.

Meanwhile Hamas continues its slow entry from the cold. While its latest initiatives, such as Khalid Meshaal's restating of the offer of a 10-year truce and distancing from the 1988 Charter, are predictably being dismissed by many in the US, they are resonating in the Middle East. The organisation which, up to December 2008, was still being treated as a pariah by many other governments is now gaining acceptance. Grudging acceptance, but still an acceptance of political legitimacy.

The problem is that a lot of folks, maybe not in Middle Eastern Governments, but amongst populations in and beyond the region, are going to ask the Emperor if his clothes are real when Obama speaks in Cairo. And I can't see where the cloth is coming from. When Hosni Mubarak declares in Washington on 26 May that he is very happy with the Israel-Palestine process, most will recognise that the Egyptian leader --- now closer to Tel Aviv than to many Arab states --- is doing it for his position with Washington. And even if Palestinian Authority Abbas declares in Washington on 28 May that he's quite happy to sit down with Netanyahu, he will do so as a weak (if not illegitimate) leader.

Obama continues to impress with his day-to-day tactics, and he did so yesterday against another master tactician, but as strategists, he and his Administration have put themselve in a difficult position.

Where I come from, it's called a "hiding to nothing".

Assessing Netanyahu-Obama: Israel, Iran, and Palestine

Latest Post: Israel-Palestine - Obama's Two-Week Window
The Netanyahu Meeting: Obama Wins Battle, Loses War
Video and Transcript: Obama-Netanyahu News Conference

Enduring America, 16 May: "Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process."

"Israel" prompts more spin and speculation than perhaps any other current issue --- even Afghanistan and Pakistan --- in US foreign policy. So, on the eve of and even during yesterday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, there were the differing, even contradictory revelations: Obama would force Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution with Palestine. Obama would set a deadline on "engagement" with Iran. Netanyahu would concede to "two-state" talks. Netanyahu would not shift his position.

None of this actually happened (except maybe that last one).

None of this happened because each leader knew he would not get the other to adopt his chief demand: Netanyahu would not get an American suspension of discussions with Tehran, and Obama would not get the Israelis to move beyond a limited Palestine agenda consisting of economic development and security. So the aim for each was to ensure he maintained flexibility, while giving the appearance of a friendly and productive meeting.

Let's start with the Iranian spectre. In the press briefing, Obama had the huge advantage of speaking first. With Netanyahu's publicity machine in overdrive on the "existential threat" of Tehran, the US President set out this apparent shared ground:

Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

Let's call this "The Bogeyman Tactic", as in I can tell my kid that I will protect him from the Bogeyman because I know he doesn't exist. As yet another CIA assessment concluded this month, the US has no evidence that Iran has an active programme for the development of nuclear weapons. So Obama could put out the bold statement which was hypothetical, rather than real.

Much more important was Obama's position on future talks with Iran. Once again he began with a diversion:

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.

The agenda in the still-private US-Iran talks, at this point, is well beyond The Bomb. Tehran wants an easing of economic sanctions; Washington wants cooperation on regional issues, with Iran offering some assistance on Afghanistan and --- in its relations with countries and parties like Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah --- giving the US some diplomatic space on the Israel-Palestine and regional issues.

The misleading headline this morning is that Obama left "all options", including military action, "on the table" (Netanyahu's words, not the US President's). Just as inaccurate is the claim that Washington has set an end-of-year deadline on the Iran talks. What Obama actually said was, "It is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever." Later in the briefing, he added:

We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.

From this, the press added 2 and 2 and got 5. It's wrong (although there is at least one Obama official, working against the Administration's current position, muttering about a deadline), but it's convenient for Washington. It keeps gentle pressure on Tehran while offering the President diplomatic cover. Without making any policy chance, he can let the Israelis claim that Washington recognises its concerns.

What then of Obama's priority issue, Israeli-Palestinian talks? The US President could not have been clearer on the central demand:

I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

The ball was in his court, but Netanyahu simply ignored it. He offered, "We want to live in peace with [the Palestinians]." More substantially, he said, "We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." But instead of uttering the word "state", he put Israel's core demands:

If...conditions are met — Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy — its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.

And, with that, Netanyahu --- who said far less than Obama to make his points --- drew his line. Obama's pointed statement that "[Jewish] settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward". No response. Obama's call for action on the "humanitarian situation in Gaza"? Netanyahu sidestepped it with, "The president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza."

On the day-to-day scorecard of statesmanship, the President and Prime Minister each got a Win. Obama blocked the Israeli insistence of Iran First:

If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.

Netanyahu, however, ensured that Palestine First would be a far from quick and complete process. His agenda --- Israel gets recognition and guarantees on its security --- trumped any specific item put by Obama, let alone the concept of a Palestinian state.

Which, beyond any issue of the political and economic future for Palestinians, leaves only the problem that will overtake these talks --- a problem for Obama, not Netanyahu.

Read on: "Obama Wins Battle, Loses War"