It was reported in the international media this week that some political forces in Sudan have called for an early demarcation of the borders between the South and the North before the referendum on self-determination, wrote Azraj Omar in a comment piece for the London-based newspaper Al Arab. "This is a dangerous precedent and prompts us to wonder about its timing and the reasons behind it." There are two possible explanations. First, political leaders in the North may have succumbed to the idea that separation was imminent. Second, it may be a pre-emptive measure to avoid a future eruption of violence in southern Sudan between advocates and opponents of the secession project.
The last scenario is more plausible, since the process of the delination of frontiers will involve more than the mere definition of geographical coordinates. It is a means by which to legally divide shares of oil and water resources. If launched, demarcation cannot technically be achieved in the remaining six months before the referendum, as it needs both lengthy negotiations and international supervision. Moreover, there are still plenty of overlapping issues that need to be addressed. The most plausible reason behind the move is that the separatists want to impose a de facto situation prior to the poll to allow themselves to tailor the borders.
In a comment piece for the UAE newspaper Al Khaleej, Saad Mehio described the US withdrawal plan from Iraq as facetious. Washington is aiming mainly to ensure firm control over the country under the disguise of an ongoing programme of military training to increase the Iraqi army's preparedness to defend the country against external enemies, "or one enemy, which is, of course, Iran".
The US existence in Iraq may take many forms. It is possible, for example, to be under the cover of a UN Security Council resolution to establish international forces to protect Iraq's borders. The US can also conclude long-term military agreements with Iraq, which will give rise to a need for the supply of American weapons, maintenance and training. The US approach is less welcome in Iraqi, both by politicians and the army. Both are obssessed with maintaining order inside the country more than ensuring security along the borders. The chief of staff, Gen Babacar Zebari, explicitly hinted at that when he said that the Iraqi army would not be able to guarantee the security of the country by 2020, urging the US forces to stay until then. But it is hard to know whether the US will respond positively to the Iraqi demand after the huge losses it has sustained. The future of the US presence in Iraq will be largely determined by future regional conflicts.
"Is it true that Kashmir is on the verge of a massive popular uprising against the Indian presence in the province?" This question was posed by Mazen Hammad in an opinion article for the Qatari newspaper Al Watan.
Popular revolts in Kashmir have erupted for three summers in a row, and have led India to its most serious internal crises in recent memory. India in an unenviable situation, not because of the ferocious and persistent resistance but because of the federal government's failure to calm the Kashmiris. India has attempted to lure them with money and election privileges, and also used force to subdue them, but to little avail.
"It is not about money - you have spent huge amounts of money," said Amitabh Matto, a professor of strategic affairs at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi and a Kashmiri Hindu. "It is not about fair elections. It is about reaching out to a generation of Kashmiris who think India is a huge monster represented by bunkers and security forces." With no apparent avenue to a settlement, as India continuously rejects international mediation, many Kashmiris have grown desperate and resorted to violence to express their anger. "If this continues, prospects of an all-out uprising is looming ahead."
"It is the farce to end all farces. A radical disagreement on negotiations before they even start," commented Rajeh al Khouri on the impending Palestinian-Israeli direct talks in the Lebanese daily Annahar. The US envoy George Mitchell ended his 17th visit to the region without succeeding in persuading the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to set a definite basis for the upcoming negotiations with the Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. Does that mean that Washington has retracted its previous agreement to the international quartet's statement? That statement called upon Israel to freeze all settlement activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It urged Israel to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians within two years, which would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian State according to 1967 lines.
In an effort to forge ahead with the peace process, Saudi-Egyptian-Palestinian talks were held this week. European states backed by Russia and the UN are said to be working on issuing a statement to determine the basis of the negotiations agenda. Nevertheless, if history has taught us something, it's that what Israel rejects, neither the US nor Europe can impose. * Digest compiled by Mostapha El Mouloudi @Email:melmouloudi@thenational.ae