A dangerous enterprise

I'm going to take something of a liberty, and engage in the risky activity of trying to predict the future. I think the next few months in Israel and Palestine could be decisive. Ariel Sharon had a minor stroke last week, and his health is a matter of discussion in Israel with elections expected in the next few months (here, for example). He will have heart surgery in the next few days.
Today's Independent reports: "Mr Sharon's government has invited tenders for 228 new houses in the West Bank settlements of Beitar Illit and Efrat in a move condemned as "political opportunism" by Peace Now. Ironically, the move came at the same time as the leak of part of the programme of Mr Sharon's new party, Kadima, backing a return to the internationally agreed road-map, which explicitly rules out such settlement expansion."
Meanwhile, those still harbouring the illusion that Israel have "given back" Gaza to the Palestinians should note the story in today's New York Times which notes that "The Israelis and Palestinians are trading fire almost daily across Gaza's border, and Israel's defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, has ordered the military to prepare an operation to keep Palestinians out of the northern part of the territory...the most likely scenario would involve helicopters and other aircraft patrolling the skies of northern Gaza."
And as I noted in my post of the 16th, the younger members of Fatah are likely to split off and possibly join Hamas. The Independent story reports that in this (likely) scenario, "A poll by An-Najar University in Nablus suggests that Hamas would be the biggest single party, at 31 per cent, if the Fatah list remains split."

Taking all of this together, the prospects for Israelis and Palestinians who wish to avert the present catastrophic and deadly course are not good. The primary body of political expression for the Palestinians is likely to become the increasingly popular Hamas. This could result in a situation analagous to that of Lebanon, where the lack of opportunity for peaceful democratic expression produces violent frustration, and the dominant Hizb'ullah recieve little external recognition, exacerbating the situation and re-inforcing Hizb'ullah's grip and the appeal of violence. This is unlikely to ameliorate the situation in the West Bank, where the process of 'Politicide', that is the destruction of Palestine as a viable social and political entity (an updated paperback edition of this magnificent, honest and startling introduction is due in June) continues unabated.

A point made frequently by decent commentators on the conflict, but rarely by major media outlets, and often under-appreciated by many people who are only casually familiar with the recent history of the struggle, and thus worth repeating here, is that Israel's settlement expansion in the West Bank is clearly and deliberately designed to fragment the West Bank socially, politically and economically in order to make the construction of a viable Palestinian state impossible. Realising that the pressure for final-status negotiations is higher than ever. the Israelis are building frantically in order to accelerate this process.

Three major factors will determine how the conflict develops in the next few months, and are likely to have a major bearing on its course over the next few years:
1) Whether the Palestinians choose violent or peaceful resistance to Israel's continuing expansion. This may amount to the option between excalating the hopeless second Intifada, which has significantly contributed to the popularity of Sharon in Israel, and seriously diminished sympathy for the Palestinian plight internationally (particularly in the most crucial place - the USA), or backing Mahmoud Abbas's Arafat-like attempt to give Israel just about anything (including giving up Palestinian statehood) in return for a 'peace deal' that may not even be honoured.
2) Ariel Sharon: At the moment, Sharon looks like about the only politician in Israel who will be able to resolve the conflict for good. This is because by harnessing the votes of the marginalised Sephardic (that is - crudely - those not of European origin) Jews, particularly the recent immigrants, and building support for a limited withdrawl from the West Bank, he has found a means of reconciling the desire for peace articulated by groups like Peace Now, and the expansionist-Zionist desires, keen to consolidate Israel's hold on the territory of 'historic Israel' articulated by groups like Likud and Shas.
3) Most importantly, it's up to us. Israel's continued expansion in to the West Bank, with the resultant fragmentation of Palestinian comunities, is only possible because Western countries permit it - as most people realise, the USA is all-important - but Europe is important too, and the recent leaked EU report on Israeli settlement, concluding that it was destroying Palestine as a cultural and political entity, has been a major contributory factor in forcing the Israelis to realise that pressure for a final-status deal is building, and thus moving them to begin frantic building in the West Bank. With a bit more activism in Europe, perhaps sufficient pressure could be brought to bear to force Israel to halt settlement activity in the West Bank. This could open the way for the implementation of the Geneva Accords, or something like them, which look like the best current option for a just settlement for both sides.
The Geneva Accords can still provide a good deal of hope for those who wish to see an end to brutality and inhumanity on both sides of this terrible conflict, but for the reasons outlined above, they will become irrelevant soon if Israel's continuing West Bank expansion is not seriously challenged. Freezing settlement activity is a vital step in moving towards a just solution to this conflict - but we must never let it become the ultimate end, which should never shift from being a just solution for both sides (the US government, especially Condaleeza Rice and the State Department, for example, appear to view a freeze on settlement as an end in itself, a position that can quickyl deteriorate in to the intractable conflicts which have not ceased since 1967.)
If the Geneva Accords - quite possibly the last serious hope for a just solution to this terrible conflict - are to be implemented, it will require a good deal of awareness in Europe and North America of exactly what is going on in Israel/Palestine, and a determination to ensure that Israel ceases settlement and is forced in to a serious consideration of this proposal, which the attitude of the US government has so far allowed it to dismiss. It's all up to us to pressure our political leaders to make this a serious and pressing issue - and time is really of the essence. But understanding the issues is fundamental. For this reason, I suggest that it is not merely a virtue, but indeed a duty to keep a very close eye on the (English-language) website of Israel's leading daily newspaper, Ha'aretz, for the next few months. Not only is history in the making, but if we only opened our eyes, we would realise that we have the chance to make it. Will we be able to look back on the first half of 2006 feeling sure that we lived up to our responsibilities?

Fair Trade

Careful readers will have noted that Shruti asked me for my thoughts on fair trade in a comment to the last post. In case anyone else is interested, here is a clipped version of my response:

'Fair trade' is a somewhat indistinct term. The people who sell 'fair trade' tee/coffee/chocolate etc. usually imply that 'fair' means that suppliers of goods are guaranteed a price that will give them a decent standard of living. But this is quite a subjective judgment, and although it might be very beneficial to a few producers, it is unlikely to draw any country out of poverty, because programmes like these in themselves have little impact on things like health and education, industrial infrastructure and so on that are needed to stimulate real and sustained growth in a whole economy.
When 'fair trade' campaigners (Oxfam etc.) are lobbying governments, they're talking about something a bit different - motly, they are calling for trade liberalization, which means ending the system by which more powerful countries protect their own industries while insisting that less powerful countries abolish any kind of protection for theirs. Now here is where I believe the Oxfam etc. campaigns stumble: they really misunderstand why the system of global trade that has emerged in the last 30-40 years is so destructive. The usual implication is that poor countries are stuck in poverty because they have surplus rice/cotton/steel/whatever 'dumped' on them (ie sold to them at below the amount it costs producers in those countries to produce the stuff) while they are prevented from exporting to richer countries by various trade barriers like tarrifs. There is no doubt that this process can cause serious and grave problems for some producers in poor countries, especially if they have been intensively producing one thing (eg coffee) that they find they cannot shift, and so are stuck with no means of income until next year's harvest. But I don't think that this is where the really serious problems lie.
In the last 30-40 years, speculative trade in foreign currency has created a high degree of destabilisation in the global economy. This has made possible the 'currency attacks' that can throw an economy into turmoil in a matter of hours should investors 'lose confidence' in government policy. There was an article from the Financial Times in April 1992 by the BBC World Service's economics correspondant on the nature of the 'de facto world government' administering the 'new imperial age.'
Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot at the Centre for Economic Policy Research in a paper called The Relative Impact of Trade Liberalization on Developing Countries ( http://www.cepr.net/publications/trade_2002_06_12.htm ) have argued that the large amounts of foreign currency holdings which poor countries maintain to safeguard against speculative 'attacks' on their currencies are a greater inhibitor of investment than rich countries' protection of their commodities. They argue that the major obstacle to development, however, is the system of patent rights being implemented, which stifle innovation in the fastest growing industries - as well as having an atrocious effect on mortality by making essential medicines unaffordable for all but a tiny minority.
In a paper about a year ago with David Rosnick ("Poor Numbers: The impact of Trade Liberalization on World Poverty" http://www.cepr.net/publications/trade_2004_11.htm ) they suggested that the projections about the benefits to poor countries of liberalization have been considerably overestimated.

In short, the issues seem more complex than campaigners like Oxfam seem to suggest, and the emerging structures of the global financial system, which is certainly not 'free' and actually has very little to do with 'trade,' need to be properly addressed before serious suggestions on how to solve these crises can be made.

In my opinion, the most urgent matter is the question of pharmaceutical patent rights, which stop producers in poor countries from coming up with cheap ways to make essential drugs, making these drugs unaffordable to most people in the developing world. The human toll is probably incalculable, but a UN Human Development Report a few years ago estimated that 30000 children worldwide were dying from preventible causes (ie hunger and disease that could be cured with the right medicine) every single day.

The following might also be of interest: Vandana Shiva, "Trade Liberalisation is Not Development"

I'm still alive!

Wow... I've deprived you, loyal readers, of my venom for more than 2 weeks.... you poor things.

Having been pretty busy, I havn't kept too close an eye on the news - in particular, I think the Israel-Palestine question will be worth paying close attention to. I just noticed something of some interest glancing at Ha'aretz though - they're carrying an AP story about a CNN report suggesting that Iraqi forces captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but let him go because they didn't recognise him. This hasn't registered with US or UK outlets (yet) which are all focusing on the elections.
It also seems that the younger members of Fatah have decided to leave and join up with Hamas. This is an indication that Mahmoud Abbas is not going to be able to dupe the Palestinians into signing away the last shreds of their claim to statehood in the manner that Yasir Arafat did over Oslo - they've learned a lesson it seems, and in the absence of any real kind of political representation, the only option they see open to them is violence. This is unlikely to trouble the Israeli government, who are holding out for as long as possible on a final settlement, and in the meantime building frantically in the West Bank to establish as many strategically placed settlements as possible so that the route of the seperation wall can ensure that the Israelis get as much territory as possible, while the Palestinian population centres are fragmented (or cantonised). The process of 'Politicide' - as described by Baruch Kimmerling in the best book I have read about the Israel-Palestine conflict - continues.


Hoping to see King Kong in the next few days...

Aids

Thursday is World AIDS awareness day. If you can, buy an AIDS Awareness Day Ribbon. If you can't - or even if you can - visit FoTAC and consider making a donation. They get money to people on the ground in South Africa, providing treatment to AIDS sufferers who need it, but can't afford it. Tragically, these number in the hundreds of thousands. Only real awareness can stop AIDS becoming a 21st century pandemic of cataclysmic proportions. Eastenders storylines may make it seem as though the battle is won - it really isn't. Even in the world's richest and freest society, treatment is not affordable for all those who need it (I won't detail the testimony behind this assertion, but the scenario is not difficult to imagine). The question before us is whether to face the crisis before or after it gets out of control. Can we afford to fail?