The world situation

2014 Russia attacked Crimea-there is no doubt about this. Just as it gathered its forces to occupy the don bas and Luhansk oblasts. And, februari 24, attacked Ukraine itself.

We are on the verge of a global nuclear war

Sofar the losers are dead Russians and Ukrainans but others are getting involved.

China and Usa are trying to get a sumohold on each other there China is the stabler with the Us aging president and the trumpists. India is preparing a national implosion with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as a joker but leads to mutual collapse. The remaining muslim world is a womanhating mess and EU is trying to tear itself apart but is united in a dislike of Russia. Left is Russia-Ukraine which is the second half of this section.

Ukraine has nowhere to go if the west doesn’t buy it militarily. Zelenskij will be only one of the russian border states. But if Ukraine and Russia make peace like Canada and Usa, then both will gain. For Ukraine the language, transports, novelties mm for Russia a granary just across the border, a method to relieve the pressure, a customer for fuel etc and now we arrive at the fundamental question: in the earlier section we have seen the continents in conflict with each other or tearing themselves apart but there is one large area both for themselves and for the world: an area of Slavic Peace.

Then the question is both for russians and ukrainians and for Russia itself : are you going to keep the hitler dream or are you going to choose Slavic Peace which feeds a large part of the world and gives a breathing space to the worlds industries. And what can be the price, oblasts who are loyal to Ukraine and oblasts who are loyal to Russia and whose citizens won’t change their minds.

The problem is the hitler dream which is supported av putinskij. The russians and ukrainans don’t want war. How can this be resolved? Let a vote be taken and a stable border established. after that the ones who run Russia (party and politburea, armed forces, fsb, gru etc) decide how to continue. One way is to keep putinskij, another is to pension them off to luxury apartments on the riviera or why not Crimea. They made war and chose peace. In an area of Slavic Peace.

Refuse to die for billy

I believe, with many others, that Nato is a union of free countries who are joined together for mutual protection against the world’s predators, but what does it mean for Nato’s citizens and the politicians we have elected?

Obviously it means that Nato’s borders, resources and people must be defended.This means also that Nato’s children,women, and men, and not only soldiers, will die if it comes to a military conflict even if no foreign troops will attack just our particular border. It is a necessary risk to reduce an even greater risk.

But it is a completely unnecessary task to defend the property of Multinational Enterprises outside the borders of Nato in countries such as Irak, Nigeria ,Kenya and Libya. Shall young Nato women and men die to secure the profits and stock gains for Ikea, Siemens, Shell and Philips. Therefore it is important that our politicians give a straight answer whether military actions are to defend not only Nato but also the multinational enterprises and the banks backing them.

Is Nato`s function the mutual security of their members instead of an economic conspiracy against the people of the world who already are the victims of their own local fanatics, profiteers and foreign puppets of profithungry foreign enterprises?

The invasion of cuba and the baltic

I don’t own a tarot deck and am not a seer.

It is up to you as a thinking reader to decide how much of the following is correct and then to keep on thinking.

If the american election runs as usual, then nothing will happen. If on the other hand, the government runs into difficulties, there is a remedy which which will get nearly all americans to back the government, and that is a military conflict.

The same if the opposition looks to win the 2024  election and even prosecute people involved. there are only 2 opponents that are on the board, venezuela and cuba.

When it is Venuzuela whith its jungles and large borders with with its availability to latinamerican volunteers an attack will be difficult to justify.

Cuba on the other hand, that threw out american interests and beat back an US supported invasion – that is a completely different story.

To start a military conflict is easy  but to end one… The following are probable consequences. a. Cuba surrenders b. a long drawn conflict follows as in the Phillipines at the end of the 1800 – irritating but bearable for the US. c. The resistance will so ferocious that american casualties will become a political issue. Then the temptation to use small yield tactical  nuclear weapons will be almost irresistible.

But, you may object, cuba lacks navy and airforce and is surrounded by water. But even today we know that portable nuclear weapons are located in several places in the USA. which means that they can be transported in a van or a larger motorboat. And as we know through discovered tunnels, import of narcotica etc  US coasts and borders leak like a sieve.

The cubans are no fanatics in general but after have seen their near and dear as carbonized radioactive corpses, what do you think?

To let the atomic djinn out of the bottle is easy but how do you put him back? And do you think the russians will just sit and roll their thumbs in the baltic?

Only brave investigative journalists backed by patriotic American women and men will be able to prevent this atrocity from being unleahed on mankind.

Stumbling into World War III

Like the meat mountains called sumo wrestlers, the american and chinese fleets confront each other in the south china sea. Apparently in place until one of them believes it has a sufficient advantage to push the other into a fatal position. Armed to the teeth with missiles and nuclear warheads. And if either is mistaken…

I don’t intend to discuss the morality of the situation. A intended military action has probably been chewed upon in the high offices as in the naval headquarters. What I hope to discuss is the possibility that a military action occurs without either part desires it and then follow up presenting a (I hope) better alternative.

Let us start with the possibility that one part thinks it is under attack and defends itself: There exists no Berlin Wall or border where contacts with the opposite side or even with their own headquarters are secure and practiced.  No such major confrontation over square miles of ocean in one of the world’s stormy areas, where the fear of an attack is constantly, present has occurred in the history of the world.

The other danger (possibility) is that a conflikt will be triggered by a third part  which is convinced that a nuclear conflict in the south china sea won’t have any major consequences outside that region. Due either through ignorance (fact resistance) or religious confusion. What ought to give both  parties nightmares is how few nuclear delivery systems are needed to cause a nuclear conflict.  Who  would have imagined that little Serbia would cause a world war in what they thought was a local conflict.

Powerful and prosperous as the two parts are so is the population and general welfare greater among us on the outside (and we have no say in the matter because then it would already been said).

Is there a practical way out? Some might think a trade boycott of the two great powers would work. Even of this was possible there would be time for a nuclear conflict time and time again before a trade boycott would be effective.

Step 1 When the world discovered a few years after world war II that the threat of a nuclear conflict hadn’t disappeared, the forces for human survival cooperated in something called the Stockholm Appeal with thousands of signatures from literates from all over the world. Unfortunately the appeal was partial against one of the sides. If such an appeal should be repeated it must be directed to both sides.

Step 2 If such an appeal or other protest, directed to both parts, is presented, it still will only be an alarm bell, A more constructive solution could possibly something similar to the following:

a. both part agree to form a Pacific Rim development council.

b. as participants in the council the other two major economies, India and Japan would be invited.

c. Together they would find a formula to invite the other countries with direct claims on the contested areas. The participating countries will have the cance to make common contributions for the development of the area but with china and usa contributing equally. Some of the investments will be devoted to research of common interest such as climate, fisheries and research under the seas. The costs will come from the sum that earlier was needed to keep both war fleets at sea in a nuclear confrontation. Countries with lesser resources will get an advance that should be repaid with parts of eventual profits

The risks are great and the advantages from a confrontion are small. The world cannot afford such sandbox quarrels with an imminent risk that they will spread themselves to the entire planet. But if both parts instead choose peaceful competition or even cooperation, then humanity has taken a major step of avoiding a nuclear holocaust.

 

 

 

 

 

Terrorism: their and our

Instead of writing a final word on terrorism of today, I am trying to define the problem and discuss a possible way out. I leave “celebrity” terrorism aside since that is a different problem.

By terrorism I mean here attacks on civilians. In the middle east Muslims are attacked by Islamists and by Western (including russian and japanese) forces of ”law and order”. In parts of the middle east Muslims are killed as part of a civil war between sunni and shia and as part of resistance against western aggression. The West is there to protect access to raw materials and to prevent religious fanatics, instead of Western corporations, from controlling the region.  Both parties are killing innocent Muslim civilians.In other words a perfect whirlpool of mixed motives:

I don’t intend to give a complete rundown of terrorist activities or discuss the rights and wrongs of the situation. The main point is that civilians are being killed as a routine matter.

The difference is that Muslim fanatics are killing other Muslims to assert their power. The Western forces of “law and order” are killing Muslims because they simply don’t care. It is clear that in crowded cities and in firefights there is no automatic immunity for civilians, but weddings and funerals are bombed, schools and hospitals are attacked without anyone held responsible. Western state terrorists are not targeting Muslim civilians; they simply do not care. To the inhabitants of these areas the difference, between the two parties, is irrelevant. Dead is dead.

Considering the historical lessons of successful antiterrorist actions, I will outline a policy. When actions against terrorism have been successful (the British against IRA for exemple) this has been based on legality. This does not mean that brute force and extermination have not also been successful. But the cost to the host society and the incompleteness of the results has made this a very chancy proposition in a world where nuclear weapons are getting cheaper, more portable and finding disturbed fanatics to carry them easier all the time.

Legality has the following parts.

1. A clear dividing line between legal and illegal activities
2. Those that are innocent are generally acquitted
3. No punishment greater than the crime committed
4. Members of military and paramilitary forces of “law and order” who have gone over the line are put on trial

The first time any officer is put on trial for “carelessness” resulting in civilian casualties will be  the el alamein of the fight against terrorism.

The first time any officer will be charged in an international court for the breach of point 4 will be the D-day of counterterrorism.

Legality is the first element but there is another element which the terrorists completely lack. The second element is kindness, which can be shown in many ways. Here is how you can think of kindness in today’s world, even if I hope you will find a better way. Apart of the manipulators, most terrorists are not very well acquainted with the Koran and its meaning.  One suggestion is that captured terrorists on the fringes of atrocities will serve their prison sentence building a mosque and their evenings studying Koran under a moderate mulla. The purpose of the studies is not to convert them but leave them informed.

The conflict between the muslim world and the west won’t be solved by violence.

 

The pig in Nato’s poke: what is missing?

For Sweden, to join Nato, is to choose between malaria and the plague. With malaria you don’t feel very well but the plague is usually deadly. From this viewpoint the question is not to join but how to join.  The first that strikes one is the unanalyzed negotiation situation. Some demands are difficult to get a hearing, others are important for Sweden but minor for Nato. I will mention two:a. Compensation for damage from military maneuvers to reindeer husbandry which is central to the same people, who are the original inhabitants of the area. b: An involuntary scarcity of women. To solve these is neither difficult or expensive for Nato.

Two major problems remain.  The first is the presence of nuclear weapons on swedish soil. Every possible aggressor will be convinced that these are present whether the government stonewalls or not. Nato will not accept such a restriction. But nuclear devices are not only a danger for Sweden but for each Nato country. Knowledge how to make smaller nuclear devices is becoming more common, knowledge how to move these is becoming more common (you don’t need missiles) and the will to offer one’s life to explode a nuclear device is becoming more common.

A more constructive solution is that Nato establishes a powerful authority for an international elimination of nuclear weapons coupled to an internationally accepted whistleblower law.  This is in the interest of Nato, just as much, as a military form of defence.

The second problem is practically absent in swedish Nato discussions. I present a few short scenarios to make it visible. a. A number of IKEA stores are burnt to the ground. Should Nato take military action? b. A country nationalizes french oil holdings without compensation. Should Nato take military action? c. A country prevents fishing vessels from Nato countries from fishing within its territorial waters. Should Nato take military action?

As you may notice, I have not listed any US corporations in these scenarios. It is no point in blaming others instead of starting to clean up our own back yard. The problem is just as much Europe’s.

To be exact. Nato membership means that  tin boxes with swedish soldiers can come from Moldavia, Svalbard and Afghanistan??!! (What Nato country borders on Afghanistan?) But this is done to defend Nato’s  borders and prevent even greater casualties.

Sweden should demand that no Swedish military action should be taken outside Nato’s borders unless it is followed within a month by a clear majority vote  in parliament. (the pearl harbor rule). Even if Nato does not agree, the question will not disappear and not only in Sweden.

Shall swedish soldiers die to defend Coca Cola, Ikea and Mcdonalds? Finally, does Sweden seek membership in a defence alliance or in an assembly  for economic aggression?

 

 

 

Sarajevo on the Baltic

The Balkans have traditionally been an the object of the great powers’  ambitions. 1914 in Sarajevo, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire was assasinated. This led
to a serie of events that became the First World War, the results of which still beset us today. The Great Powers of Europe were taken by surprise quite simply.
Today we have a similar situation in the Baltic. In articles, speeches, and plans it has been discussed how Nato and Russia, separately, or simultaneously can prepare an
armed conflict there. Here I wish to discuss something  nobody takes up: the risk for such a conflict when nobody wants it. I want to show that Tjernobil and Fukushima, the risk for an armed conflict is great, could happen at any moment, but can be limited by a thoughtout plan of action.

the fire hazard

After the invasion of Sovjet Russia at the end of the Second World War, the Baltic was treated as a part of Russia. People from Russia were moved there or were drawn there by various rewards.When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989 and the Baltic states regained their independence, these people were stranded. In this article I call them the Rbalts. The original inhabitants I designate as Urbalts. One possibility was that the Urbalts could have realized what an advantage this was and the Rbalts what an unique opportunity this offered, but the recent oppression and both groups unwillingness to integrate has been too great. We have in other words a firehazard that can be ignited at any moment by any spark of conflict. It is an illusion to imagine that, whoever runs the government, Russia would remain passive if Rbalts are killed. It is just a great illusion to imagine that Nato would remain passive if “volunteers” crossed the border of any Baltic state to support Rbalts who cause disturbances.

the fire alarm

To prevent this, an agreement must be signed, quickly, between Nato and ´Russia to handle the situation.A “direct line” must be established between Kreml and the Nato for swift intervention before the situation gets out of hand. In other words, an EU muddle such as in the migrant question is to ask for a military conflict in the Baltic.

the sparks

a. a Baltic government that faces an election defeat because it is too corrupt or incompetent, is tempted to play the ethnic card openly or behind the scenes.

b. Urbaltic or Rbaltic xenophobes. That means those that not only hate other ethnics but organize acts of violence against them. Note! That they may be only a minor part of  their group is of no importance; it is the threat of violence against people based on their origin. A fire alarm is the mass media content in the area or across the border.

c.  Ambitious high Russian officials. As long as there is peace in the area it remains a backwater. But if tensions increase so do the promotion opportunities  for higher officials.   Some “patriots” may be tempted to increase their influence.

the fire station

If tensions get out of hand immediate action is needed where the Balt states, Nato and Russia are informed. For this to be effective a crisis line must exist between the Kreml and Nato and a crisis center exist where both parties are represented.

Fire fighting

To start a fire is the work of a moment, but it takes time to extinguish one. I cannot prescribe how it should be done, but I can suggest how it could be done. Because preparation is necessary.

a. What kind of Nato troops?

It is important therefore that the troops don’t belong to the historical enemies or friends of Russia. A start at least should be made with soldiers from West of the Rhone.

b. What should they do?

Take over law enforcement duties from the local government, see that the laws of the land are followed, and maintain life in the turbulent areas till the situation calms down. Which means no Urbalts or Rbalts being harmed. They shall also prevent any “volunteers” as in Crimea and eastern Ukraine or any rightwing extremists like the “Azov brigade”from the Ukraine entering the area.

c. Human rights, a cause for conflict?.

Genocide, like in Rwanda, has often followed an official or tolerated  campaign in mass media which has whipped up hatred against the targeted group. On the other hand, freedom of speech is one of the tools a democratic society has developed to limit political power and its misuses.It is  important that Nato journalists have full freedom to investigate developments and write about them. But what if the government or organizations in the Baltic States misuse freedom of speech to spread ethnic hatred? Even this must be prepared against and not solved by some last minute improvisation. A court should be established where the crime would be massmedial preparation for genocide. The court should consist of lawyers and journalists and have its own investigative resources.

d. A tool from history

The following is an idea and not a proposal as above.There could be many other proposals. In Italy of the renaissance, when two powerful factions could not agree, and city life became paralyzed, a podesta was established. That is an authority constituted of people not related to either faction who were imported till the local parties realized that they could do things better themselves by working together. That is an emergency measure to cool things down until time has passed and at least a better solution than  quotas that has more or less paralyzed Bosnia.

e. Demagogues

Real differences of opinion can exist between Urbalts and Rbalts which can only be solved by mutual discussions. But some will want to use and deepen these differences for their own personal advantage.To counter this a court should be established against preparations for genocide and the convicted be exiled to west of Rhone or east of the Urals.

f. Sovereignity

It is obvious that the proposals above are  an interference with the sovereignity of the Baltic states in question. But does sovereignity give the right for a number of selfwilled men to set the whole of Europe on fire?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

China gains by granting autonomy to Tibet

There are major questions. Why now? What will it involve for China and Tibet? Why should China do it?

I. Why now?

The Dalai Lama is still alive and is world renowned. An agreement where he is involved will have greater effect in Tibet than his replacement and China will reap maximum benefits.

II.What does autonomy mean for China and Tibet

Any autonomy agreement depends on the parties involved, not on general principles or foreign ideas. But to show that that autonomy is not unthinkable I present the following proposal to get the discussion started.

a. No interference with Tibetan religious practices except as stated out in the AA (autonomy agreement) nor involving the abuse of human beings.

Komment: On the one hand many abuses of human rights can be covered up as a religious practice. Forced employment in monasteries as an exempel. On the other hand meddling with religious practices can be camouflaged as a defense of human rights.

b. The status of the Dalai Lama will be respected and the succession a Tibetan matter.

c. Defence and foreign relations will be reserved for the Chinese government

Komment: This means that Tibetans will not be armed, and that they will undergo civil conscription served within Tibet. Also that no foreigners will be admitted to Tibet without the consent of the Chinese government and after discussions with the Tibetan autonumous authority.

d. The presence of non-tibetan speakers in the government (this includes scientific and health services) or in private equivalents will be reduced with a measurable reduction each year.

e. No commercial activities will be carried out except by Tibetan nationals and with the consent of the Chinese governmnt.

Komment: This will be the hardest part to accept by either side. What does it mean? First Tibet will not, by the AA, be allowed to be a base for commercial penetration of China and that Chinese commercial law, with due consideration of RP (religious practices) will be the rule for business activities aimed at China or abroad. On the other hand Tibetan commercial law modified by RP will be the rule in autonomous Tibet itself. This to prevent religious symbols or places to be exploited by ruthless businessmen native to Tibet

For another that Han nationals will not be allowed to own property or engage in commercial activities in Tibet itself and thus by economic weight subvert the AA.

Either part can delay decisions or subvert the AA but then why make it in the first place.

One fundamental problem is that China is so large so that local officials out of greed or ambition can subvert the AA despite the intentions or the interest of the Chinese government. Even if not there may be differences of opinion between Han and Tibetans . To create an impartial tribunal to resolve such differences is one of the important task of the AA negotiators.

III. What does China gain?

The major question for China is whether it will exchange the semblance of power for the the substance of power. A necessary ingredient in both is military strength. This exists. However the substance of power is a well ordered society supported by its citizens and respected by the international community. By its present policy towards Tibet, China signals that it is an unjust society and a danger to its neighbors.

The disadvantages to China of a truly autonomous Tibet are trivial and the benefits great. And in this world of predators, Tibet, protected by the might of China could become one of the brightest jewels in the dragon’s crown and both make their contribution to world harmony.

Fight the extremists, not the Talibans.

 

Let us imagine the following. Due to some serious terrorist actions, foreign troops are forced to invade the US. Which then would lead to the least  casualties among invaders as well as US civilians: Attacking the “moral majority” or attacking the extremists groups?

 

If the invaders  limit themselves to attacks on extremists or interfering , in addition, with the court system.

 

Bringing in foreign aid workers and businessmen of the same nationality as the major invading forces or limiting the presence of foreign civilians to the minimum as much as possible.

 

Please keep this scenario in mind while we discuss the following questions.

 

First – why is the West in Afghanistan at all?  What are Western war aims? Or to put it differently, in what way does Western presence in Afghanistan make sense?

 

Second-What is the situation in Afghanistan?

 

Third- What is the nature of the Western Presence in Afghanistan?

 

Fourth-What makes the Western Presence unnecessarily disruptive in Afghanistan, supporting the extremists and causing avoidable damage to civilians and to the Western forces.

 

Fifth – How should the Western Forces react to the different factors in Afghanistan?

 

 

  

A.     Why is the West in Afghanistan at all? What are the Western war aims? Or to put it differently: is there any way that the Western presence in Afghanistan makes sense?

 

The drug trade, denial of women’s rights, the establishment of the Muslim laws  called the sharia, oppression of citizens. All these occur, more or less, in countries without any Western military presence and often allied with the West.

 

How is Afghanistan different?

 

a.      It has a government which does not control its own territory or even its own bureacracy (the closest comparison is former South Vietnam)

b.      The risk of an extremist takeover (not a Taliban-they are already there) is great.

c.       In addition the government itself is in danger of being taken over by drug dealers and turning into a narco state.

 

The West is there to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a global danger by being a safe shelter for global terrorists. But the ones paying the price for global security are the Afghan people.

 

Therefore the only Western war aim that makes  any sense is to prevent the extremists from gaining control of Afghan territory.

 

B. What is the situation in Afghanistan?

 

Think of a series of dials. A big one for Afghanistan as a whole. Smaller ones for each province.  At the far left of each dial are the extremists (10%), next we have the very conservative and devout rural and small town population(40%),  then rightward we have the ones just trying to make a living and and getting along with the power that be, tolerating Western benefits  with (health care  and  women’s schools) and Western habits (rock, Western movies, Western dress) in various degrees the more you move rightward(30%). Then you have the Western modernizers who fully accept Western ideals (10%). Finally you have the drug dealers, war lords and gangsters at the far right (10%).Don’t get caught in the percentages – they are approximate and change as the needle moves. The needle is the current situation in Afghanistan based on what people think, how they act, and how the local leadership changes.

 

This means that it is not only  possible but necessary to negotiate with local Taliban leaders.  Depending on the position of the needle ,  the treaties will hold or not. However if they are broken  then it is back to the negotiating table again. Outrage will not solve anything but perseverance will give a breathing spell for ordinary Afghans to get on with their lives and  join to improve their society. It is this civil action that is the hope of Afghanistan.

 

 

        C.  What is the nature of the Western presence in Afghanistan?

 

The Western presence is that of foreign invaders with an alien culture whom the Afghan people did not ask  to intervene. The extremists are nearly all Afghans, bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. That is the great advantage that they have.

On the other hand the extremists are fanatics who push the envelope till it pops.

The  great advantage of the Western forces is that the extremists run their territories so badly that even Western invaders are tolerated. Until the West in turn screws up so badly that the needle swings back again.  It  is important to note that the West is now engaged in a ground war in Asia, something which one Western general after another has warned against from General Eisenhower on down.

 

   D.      What makes the Western presence unnecessarily disruptive in           Afghanistan and and plays into the hands of the extremists?

 

i.                    Carpetbaggers.

 

These can be put under the following headings. Businessmen trying to exploit the weakness and corruption of the Afghan government to make money.

“Idealists?” claiming to help but in reality trying to impose their private agenda on the Afghans using the Western military presence and Afghan economic weakness.

 

What is the price in wayside bombs and bullets in the dark that justifies the presence of these?

 

I propose that nationals from the major contingents serving in Afghanistan (with the exception of journalists) be barred. Martyred Afghanistan is not to be a playground for economic and ideological hustlers. As for the citizens from smaller countries, their presence ought to be discouraged unless the Afghan government insists on their presence. Even their    help costs too much in paving the way for local extremists.

 

ii.                  Atrocities

 

On the face of it there is a military necessity for air attacks and artillery fire where civilians and their livelihod are at risk.  And there are no risks to the ones ordering it– charge it to the taxpayer. The risks are borne by the men in the field who are the targets of those avenging their martyred dead.

 

I propose the following, either separately or in combination for a trial period of six months:

 

a.  Air attacks and artillery fire as usual but a reduction of one pay grade for the officer ordering it.

 

b.  An board of inquiry for every such event, evaluating the necessity, the effect and eventual errors.

 

As it is now, bombing the wrong village or for inadequate reasons is written off as a mishap and these mishaps keep happening because there is no interest in correcting them.

 

                     If after 6 months (or earlier if there is a sharp casualty rise due to these restrictions)  there  is no increase in military casualties traced to these restrictions then they should remain.

 

       E.   How to minimize Western distruption of life in Afghanistan?

 

                a. Compensation for loss of life and property   

 

 

Any loss of life or property (read livelihood and shelter) due to Western military action should be compensated in a way that puts the money into the hands of the sufferers and not parcelled out through a corrupt bureaucracy.

That extremists use the civilian population as shields is totally irrelevant. They are Afghans, the Westerners are invaders and the extremists would not use the civilians as shields if the Westerners weren’t attacking them. (OK this means that the extremists are literally getting away with murder, but that is not the point.)The point is the reaction of the victims and their neighbors (see section B )

 

  b.  Establish an agricultural support program.

 

            It is important that this does not interfere with normal market procedures. That   is a matter for the Afghans. The program should be confined to compensating for floods and storms on the one hand and providing affordable (not genetic modified)  seeds for the nexts season’s planting, on the other. Unfamiliar crops for which there is a local demand could also be financed this way.  It is important that this should not go through the Afghan bureaucracy.  A benchmark should be set up for when the program should be phased out, otherwise it will always be “needed”.

 

c.  A pension plan for seniors who survived the Sovjet invasion

 

                    For many years the Afghans fought the Soviets. Their resistance was one of the major reasons for the fall of the Sovjet empire. Most of the survivors have died of privations or from the subsequent unrest.

 

   I suggest: That the West pays a modest monthly pension to Afghan senior citizens in those districts that have a functioning girl’s school and women’s medical clinic. That the payment gets into the hands of the poverty stricken population and not sticking to somebody’s palm. 

 

To sum up: Resist the extremists, negotiate with the local Talibans time and time again, limit  the carpetbaggers, cooperate with the government at arm’s length, and prepare a sensible exit strategy for Afghanistan.      

               

 

 

Armistice between Israel and Palestine

This continues: Time to leave the merrygoround of violence in the Middle East

There are some major issues arising from the armistice proposal which have to be addressed, even though not part of the proposed agreement itself.

a. Limitations on sovereignty

The Proposed agreement will leave the Palestinians with the West Bank, cleared of Israeli settlements, without the Gaza Strip, but with the addition of areas from Israel of almost exclusively Palestinian composition. The question of Jerusalem will probably have to await a peace treaty which could not reasonably be negotiated earlier than 5 years after an essentially continual armistice.

A fully independent Palestinian state may be possible for a short while. But with hostile actions emanating from Israel in retaliation for attacks from Palestinian territory which such a state could not possibly control, barring a general Middle Eastern peace treaty, there would be only 2 outcomes: a total breakdown of the armistice or a puppet government.

On the other hand a sovereign Palestinian nation with state sovereignity, limited by Israeli security concerns,  is fully possible, but only with far reaching  Israeli concessions in return.

What would this involve?

Israeli troops and customs checks at the borders of Palestine as at present. Nothing stronger than small arms in the hands of Palestinians. Israeli incursions in case of hostile actions of gravity.

b.  Advantages for Palestine of such limitations for the duration of the armistice.

I want to emphasize here that none of these advantages  that follow outweighs the limitations on sovereignity but may make them endurable if joined to suitable compensation while Palestine builds its own nation.

1 The entire government budget will be devoted to civilian needs. As a bonus, an armed coup will be much more difficult.

2 The government will be less liable to come into armed conflict with its own citizens or with fellow arabs, some of which would even be of Palestinian descent.

3 This however is not enough, if it is to be endurable, there has to be some compensatory limitation on Israeli sovereignty, which does not affect Israels security and other security neutral concessions as well.

What follows is not intended to be a realistic proposal but an exampel showing how to think about these matters.

1 Palestinian officials in Israel

Israel gives Palestine a monopoly on package tours of the IP area and considers breach of this as a threat to the armistice and state security. While having control of its own customs, Israel trains and pays for customs officers who are Palestinian nationals  at all access points, even Israeli airports and harbors. These officers will function more as travel agents than as customs officials. So among the first faces that a visitor to IP meets, will be Palestinian government officials bearing Palestinian national insignia.

2 Payment for damage

Violent actions from Palestine territory directed against Israel, will continue after the armistice for reasons noted in the main proposal. If the armistice is to be successful it cannot be a shield for such actions. This means that Israeli retaliations may continue. It is necessary therefore, if the armistice is to hold,  for Israel to agree to a neutral assessment of damage and compensation for non terrorist lives and property. This cannot be a part of the armistice agreement proper as it would imply that Palestine permits such retaliation. It should be a unilateral action by Israel as a consequence of such retaliations.

3 Generosity

When an armistice is signed, it is important that Israel as the more powerful of the signatories interprets the provisions as generously as possible, within the security limitations involved. The armistice is only the first step to the ending of this unfortunate conflict and it would be ridiculous to expend all this time and effort and have it fail due to petty execution or rigid interpretation.

4 Return of senior citizens

As an exemple of generosity is the return to Israel of senior citizens who are Palestinian nationals. Even with a peace treaty, it is an illusionto believe that Israel will ever consent to a “law of return” for Palestine, similar to the one applying to those of Jewish origin. However both as a gesture of good will and to relieve the Palestiniabn budget, a sizable number of such senior citizens should be permitted to settle in Israel. The number depending on the ebb and flow of economic conditions in Israel.

5 Economic support

If the two nations were at peace and a natural calamity would affect one of them, wouldn’t the other be a good neighbor and help the stricken one. It is useful to consider the long conflict as such a calamity which has weighed more heavily on Palestine than on Israel. On the other hand Israel would not be prepared to transfer funds which wind up in armaments or an offshore bank account. As an example: two wasys which would be difficult to divert improperly would be a certain percentage of the difference of percapita income between the two nations to be paid directly as a pension supplement and children’s allowances for the first 3 children.

c  Restrictions on the IP

1. No Palestinian nationals working in Israel.

The use of an external workforce from Palestine will in itself strain the armistice as much as to make it useless. A large group of people taking the worst jobs, confronting the greater prosperity of Israel each day and subject to Israeli culture is an unnecessary source of great conflict. Until both Israel and Palestine separately consider that the conflict is resolved (which would need a peace treaty at the very least) they should be kept apart.

2  The Wall – its armistice context

The wall was build to protect Israeli territory. Its section on the West Bank must be torn down before the armistice is signed. Neither part has yet reason enough to trust the promises of the other part. However I submit that it should be rebuilt on Israeli territory and only torn down there as the consequence of a peace treaty. Its function is to protect the security of Israel and  the independent development of the nation of Palestine.

Let us consider the situation of Palestine, After decades of struggle what of the Palestine of peace that the armistice would enable? How will it develop into a nation with its own ways, goals and destiny without being smothered by Israel and constantly having Israelis of Jewish and Palestinian origin as role models? It is bad enough that Palestine is under the Israeli media umbrella. To build itself as a nation it needs a period of benign neglect on the part of Israel.

Internationally it is a different matter. Neither carries enough weight by itself but together, with their joint history, they can mean something.

The above shows some of the consequences of an armistice and how they could be met.

The real solutions are of course a matter for direct negotiation.