Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (r) shaking hands with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas prior to a meeting in Beit-ul-Moqaddas, Nov. 19.

The Israeli right-wing and its allies in the media are working relentlessly to undermine the Annapolis peace conference.
To make the conference convened by President Bush, his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made no less than eight visits to the Middle East in less than a year.
But the Israeli government’s position on the conference has always been that of a reluctant participant, sending contradictory messages, lowering expectations and discouraging optimism about the outcome.
Putting aside the audacity of the demand by some Israelis for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the Israeli right-wing has used all conceivable arguments and excuses to spoil any chance of success for the conference.
First, the talk was about the absence of a Palestinian peace partner. When a partner appeared on the scene, it was a “weak“ partner incapable of controlling his people and unable to deliver. Then came the excuse of continuing Palestinian terrorism and the implementation of the first phase of the road map, until they realized that the Palestinian Authority had almost completed implementation of its obligations, and that it was Israel who failed to deliver its side of the bargain.
For his part, President Mahmoud Abbas, the main protagonist, also assumed the role of a catalyst in order to make Rice’s efforts successful.
Abbas accommodated Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is facing a barrage of attacks from the fringes of his Kadima party, from the leader of the Labor Party and from extreme right-wing parties such as Likud, Shas and the so-called Israel Beiteinu party.
In his effort to make it easier for the US administration, the president bent over backward to make convening a worthwhile conference possible.
He did not insist on finding a comprehensive framework solution for the core issues now, and did not insist on a six-month timeframe for reaching an agreement, thus allowing Olmert enough leeway to maneuver in the face of Shas, Lieberman, Barak, and others.
Another Israeli right-wing excuse is the “speed“ at which the process of peacemaking is proceeding! They accuse the Olmert government of haste as if 15 years of negotiations and 40 years of occupation are not long enough.
But nothing is as puzzling, or perhaps as revealing, as the right-wing argument as conveyed by an editorial in the Jerusalem Post on Monday.
The editorial argues that the idea of setting a deadline for wrapping up an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians has ignored something as important: A deadline for turning back the Iranian threat. The editorial concludes: “If this failure continues, the result will be a much more dangerous world, characterized by a global nuclear arms race, growing terrorism, sky-high oil prices, waning Western influence, perhaps culmination in a full-blown war.“
One would like to ask the editors of the Jerusalem Post: Is it not exactly this what the world is experiencing now? And who is behind the nuclear arms race in the Middle East? The Jerusalem Post also has to explain how much the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands since 1967 has contributed to the current dangerous situation in the Middle East, and the world at large.
But there is some good news. It seems Israeli excuses not to engage in meaningful peace negotiations leading to a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East no longer carry the same weight as before.
The world community is learning, albeit belatedly, that settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a major plus for world security, and world economic stability.
It is therefore logical to assume that only intense and determined involvement by the Quartet led by the US is capable of convincing, if not pressuring Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories, and to conclude a comprehensive peace settlement.
An Annapolis failure should not be an option, as it will empower extremists, and this is a recipe for an impending disaster.
ARABNEWS.COM

Australia’s election will be fought mostly over domestic issues, especially interest rates. While Labor is well ahead in the polls, its victory is not assured. But whoever becomes prime minister after the election will face some contentious decisions on nuclear issues. And it’s not just Australians who will be watching closely.
The first decision might come relatively soon, in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) with regard to India. The NSG coordinates export controls on sensitive nuclear and dual-use equipment, materials and technology to ensure their peaceful use.
NSG guidelines ensure that apart from the five “declared“ nuclear powers, such materials are provided only to signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
If the proposed nuclear deal between India and the United States is ever ratified by both legislatures, America will seek an exemption for India in the NSG, even though India has refused to sign the NPT. That’s more than a little ironic because the NSG was set up in the first place because India lied and cheated before testing a nuclear weapon in 1974 (a so-called peaceful nuclear explosion).
On the NSG, Australia’s vote will be critical. Australia is one of the strongest supporters of the NPT regime, and has 40 percent of the world’s proven uranium reserves. The vote of Canada, another major uranium exporter, and also a U.S. ally, will also be important.
Prime Minister John Howard obviously intends to vote for the NSG exemption for India. He knows that Australia’s comparative advantage in uranium exports will not last long in a world hungry for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.
And Australian resource companies are keen to lock in buyers at current high prices. Thus if the U.S.-India nuclear deal is ratified by the NSG, a re-elected conservative government in Canberra will be willing to sell uranium to India even though India still refuses to sign the NPT.
For his part, Labor leader Kevin Rudd says Australia must not sell uranium to any country (other than the five “declared“ nuclear powers) that is not an NPT signatory. So, in the election campaign, Rudd has maintained that as long as India refuses to join the NPT, Australia should refuse to sell it uranium.
Indeed, for the left wing of the Labor Party, and its coalition partner the Greens, the NPT is a holy grail. So is the 1996 Canberra Commission that called for the abolition of nuclear weapons. These antinuclear allergies reflect in large part the success in Australia of Soviet antinuclear propaganda during the Cold War.
But what will Rudd do if he becomes prime minister? Rudd is not unknown at the “big end“ of town. To the contrary, he worked for two years as a China consultant for the global financial advisory firm KPMG. He knows that riding the resources boom is essential if Australia is not only to enjoy continued prosperity, but also to provide for those who need a “leg up“ from the government.
In addition, U.S. policy toward India is driven by the imperative to have India on its side in America’s growing strategic competition with China.
That imperative is widely shared in Australia, even by those who doubt that India can be a “reliable“ ally for anyone. And Rudd is not naive about China, although many in the Labor party are.
Indonesia, which is showing renewed interest in nuclear energy, is now confronted by a “rising“ India and a “rising China,“ both armed with nuclear weapons.
As for Australia, it too, like Japan, has had its Gaullists in the past. Most notable was conservative Prime Minister John Gorton (1969-71), who believed that Australia could not afford to entrust its nuclear security to allies who might prove unreliable in a crisis. Indeed, nuclear weapons offer the only real guarantee of independence.
But, as in Japan, more mainstream Australians think that the best choice is to continue to rely on the U.S. for nuclear security.
They worry that a growing attraction to Gaullism would signal dissatisfaction with the U.S. alliance, thus inviting the abandonment they most fear.
Still, even those who want to hold on to the U.S. nuclear umbrella may not be willing to go along with any international agreement that would prevent Australia from enriching uranium.
Japan hedges by maintaining a “virtual“ nuclear deterrent. Similarly, Australia would be foolish to let others cut off its uranium-enrichment options. Howard certainly seems to think so, even if he hasn’t shouted it from the rafters.
JAPANTIMES.COM

If you’re sure Al Gore is not running for the US election, think again. He’s trading at a 3.2% chance of winning the US elections. In case you are not very impressed by these odds, they are better than those you can get for Senator Edwards and every other Democrat except Hilary Clinton and Barak Obamað-and that’s without even declaring he’s running!
Even more remarkably he’s trading at 4.0% for winning the Democratic primary, so the market predicts that if he was to win the Democratic primary, he would win the Presidential election with an 80% implied probability.
Hilary Clinton by contrast who has a 72% chance of winning the nomination, has only a 50% chance of winning the election and so only a 70% chance of winning if nominated.
So, if you’re an influential Democrat, please, pretty please, get Gore to run. The US constitution will be salvaged, the global climate rescued, the American involvement in the war in Iraq ended. But sadly the word on the street is that he’s not interested.
But there’s another important job awaiting Gore. According to CNN on November 19th 2007, it appears that US special forces are now going to be on the ground in Pakistan, so why not give Pakistan Al Gore as well?
As a Pakistani citizen living in the US it behooves me to list why it will be better for both Pakistan and the US. I would even go further and argue its better for all humankind, and most plants and animals, earth, wind, fire and water.
Let’s start with the pesky legalities. The Pakistani Supreme Court has already allowed Musharraf to runð-on the seemingly overbroad principle that no one objected--so why not now allow Al Gore to run? Pakistanis have ways of making sure no one objects.
There already exist precedents for ex-grandees to run states in crisis: Lord Owen and Prime Minister Arthassari of Finland both ran Bosnia. While not exactly setting a precedent, it will draw attention. And to the extent that it does, it will accelerate the opening up of the international market for chief executives of nation states, which could be a very good thing (President Bill Clinton of Russia, Tony Blair of Italy .) But I’m getting ahead of myself and actually listing the benefits for the world. So let us begin with Pakistan and America.
For Pakistan Al Gore will be a far more credible provider of moderate enlightenment than the current leading incumbent, General Pervez Musharraf. Al Gore has just written a book on “The Assault on Reason“ defending the core value of the enlightenment. And Al Gore has consistently defended civil liberties in America which grew out of the Enlightenment.
At the same time, Al Gore is clearly no friend of extremism. Second, Al Gore would be far better at fixing the economy. The economy needs a credible judiciary and Gore could more easily restore the dismissed judges and restore confidence in the judiciary.
And Al Gore has access to the best economic advice: imagine having Larry Summers run the Pakistan economy? (In case you think we couldn’t get him, think again: Larry Summers is power hungry, interested and experienced in development [he was Chief Economist of the World Bank] and kinda underemployed nowdays merely teaching macroeconomics to undergrads).
Third, other than moderately enlightening Pakistan, and fixing the economy, the most important issues facing Pakistan are probably environmental: the receding water tables in Baluchistan; deforestation in the North, and the related flooding in the Indus, water logging and salinity in Sind; the poaching and trading of endangered animals.
Al Gore is far more likely to deal with these really important environmental issues confronting Pakistan. In international forums, an American-backed Gore would carry more weight and could act more forcefully in Pakistani interests. Just contemplate this: he may even be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US.
For Americans the most important issue is preventing terrorists from getting hold of Pakistan’s Nukes. Now, there’s no serious danger of terrorists actually getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.
But Americans think they might, and that’s an issue. Al Gore will be better at assuring Americans that the nukes are safe. He will fight terrorism as Pakistan’s president more effectively than Musharraf has (really, he hasn’t been that good ðremember, he’s been trading suicide bombers with Mullah Omar). In international forums like G77 Al Gore will work for American and global interests (but more on this below).
As a member of the Organization of Islamic States, Gore could act in American interests and talk through the issues with reasonable debate that would otherwise lead to clashing civilizations.
Now for the World: plant, animal, or human. The trend set for the internationalization of world leaders would improve global governance. Imagine Tony Blair as the prime minister of Italy and Bill Clinton for Russia.
As a member of an important G77 country, Al Gore will be able to influence important countries like Brazil and China to open their markets and do other things in the interest of all mankind.
And he could convince the G77 to limit emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and stop trading in endangered plants and animals. This would be good for all humankind, and most plants and animals, including Pakistan’s political elite.
Omar Azfar
COUNTERPUNCH.COM

At one level, I just don’t get it. It’s clear that the surge by U.S. troops has really dampened violence in Iraq. So don’t we now need a surge in diplomacy to finish the job?
It often feels to me as if Secretary Rice just wants to keep Iraq at arm’s length and hope that it will somehow end up on someone else’s report card.
If you were President Bush and your whole legacy was riding on the outcome of this war, wouldn’t you be sending your top diplomat to Baghdad to work with Iraqis and their neighbors to broker a political settlement and not let them grow complacent that they have an open-ended commitment from the American people?
But then I talk to people in Baghdad and look at what is really evolving there and I say to myself: “Maybe you’re missing something that Secretary Rice knows-- that there isn’t going to be any formal political reconciliation moment in Iraq, grand bargain or White House signing ceremony. The surge has made Iraq safe, not for formal political reconciliation yet, but safe for an ’A.T.M. peace.’ “
That is, each of the Iraqi factions basically agrees to live and let live with the new lines drawn by the last two years of civil war and the Baghdad government serves as an A.T.M. cash machine--supporting the army and local security groups and dispensing oil revenues to the provincial governors and tribal chiefs from each community.
Sure, the Shiites haven’t passed a law to let more Sunni Baathists into the government, but they’re still letting some back. Yes, they haven’t passed an oil law, but the government is still spreading around the cash.
Michael Gordon, The Times’s top military expert, whose history of the Iraq war, “Cobra II,“ is one of the best books on the subject, said the phrase circulating in the military lately to describe the situation evolving in Iraq is “accommodation without reconciliation.“ The various parties basically accept the new imbalance of power--Shiites on top, but allowing the Kurds and Sunnis to have a share--and the political struggle continues with lower levels of violence.
It isn’t irreversible. That only happens when refugees start returning in large numbers, because they see a flourishing economy, a government delivering services equitably and reliably, political alliances developing across Sunni-Shiite lines and security forces they can trust in their neighborhoods. We are still miles away from that, yet something seems to be moving.
And that brings me back to Secretary Rice. Is she just keeping away from the Iraq mess to save her image, or does she know that the Iraqi politicians will not and cannot seize this moment to reach a grand bargain, because making big public concessions to one another is still extremely dangerous in a country like Iraq. It is an invitation for assassination.
But maybe their own very Iraqi, very ad hoc, very oil-lubricated, modus vivendi can still get us somewhere stable and decent.
Thomas L. Friedman
NYTIMES.COM