 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Iraqis unite for anti-US march
Thousands of Shia and Sunni Muslims have marched through Baghdad protesting against the US occupation, and demanding a say in the new Iraqi Government.
Up to 10,000 people gathered in front of a Sunni Muslim mosque in northern Baghdad, then marched across a bridge over the Tigris to the Kadhamiya quarter, home to one of Iraq's holiest Shia shrines.
The march - one of the largest since the war ended - shows how religious voices from the two main branches of Islam are getting stronger as negotiations for an interim authority take shape, says the BBC's Barbara Plett in Baghdad.
It comes as Iraq's new US administrator, Paul Bremer, conducts a major review of the country's security needs - and of plans for the its political future.
Many have been calling for an Islamic revival in post-war Iraq, especially the majority Shias, but fearful of sectarian splits they put on a show of unity with the minority Sunnis, who ran the country under Saddam Hussein, our correspondent says.
Soldiers watch protest
The demonstrators marched to celebrate the birthday of the prophet Mohammed but their slogans were political.
They said those Iraqis negotiating with the Americans were exile groups who did not represent them.
"What we are calling for is an interim government that represents all segments of Iraqi society," said Ali Salman, an activist.
Small groups of US infantrymen, including snipers on nearby rooftops, watched the rally but did not intervene, AP reported.
Several dozen Shia organizers armed with rifles patrolled the area. They, too, were left alone by the Americans.
There was a second protest in Baghdad on Monday, as about 100 bus drivers demanded their company chief be reinstated by the US authorities who sacked him because of his Baath Party background.
Delays in transition
BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says it is clear that Mr Bremer is reassessing how to handle the promised transition from American to Iraqi rule.
And although he is not ready to confirm it, the signs are the transition will be slower than originally planned, our analyst says.
The political groups which were formally in opposition - and now consider themselves the country's embryonic leadership - have been quick to criticise what Mr Bremer told them in a closed meeting on Friday.
He reportedly said the Americans and the British would have to govern the country for an "indefinite period" - and declined to commit himself to a timetable for handing over power to an interim Iraqi authority.
His predecessor, Jay Garner, had said the nucleus of such an authority would emerge this month. That now looks too optimistic.
The Americans fear that if they rush to empower a group of "emerging leaders", this might produce a weak and unstable government.
But if they govern the country themselves - and control its oil and its oil revenues - they risk being increasingly resented as a new colonial power.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/...ast/3040047.stm
Published: 2003/05/19 11:46:37 GMT
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0305200327may20,1,7509950.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsopinion%2Dhed
Don't forget Afghanistan
May 20, 2003
Anti-American protests erupted recently in Kabul, the first since the United States and its allies drove the Taliban from power in late 2001. The protesters were angry that the rebuilding of their country, which they hoped would bring jobs and a bit of prosperity to this war-ravaged land, was going so slowly.
That this protest was the first after almost two years of American forces in the country attests not only to what many say is a deteriorating situation, but also to the residual goodwill that many Afghans held for Americans after the Taliban were ousted. In Iraq, by contrast, the first anti-American protests broke out almost immediately after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
While it is true that the installation of Afghan President Hamid Karzai was a model of international cooperation, efforts to consolidate his control and rebuild the country have fallen far short of expectations. Many of the promises made by the U.S. and the international community for billions in aid have been delayed because the security situation there remains haphazard.
There is a danger that as concern grows over disorder in Iraq, Afghanistan will be allowed to slip further back on an ever-growing list of national priorities. At least one Afghan official has warned that the country could become a "narco-terrorist" state if more aid isn't forthcoming. Even though a far bigger task is at hand in Iraq, the U.S. cannot let Afghanistan fall into chaos.
Since the war, several thousand American soldiers in Afghanistan have focused most of their efforts on scouring the countryside for former Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, an effort that has made them increasingly unpopular among ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, a relatively small number of international peacekeepers has been unable to extend operations much beyond the capital. That has basically frozen significant rebuilding efforts. But recently, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that U.S-led forces were shifting their focus from combat to reconstruction, despite a recent surge in fighting and fears that Al Qaeda is regrouping.
That shift is welcome, but the U.S. is still in a delicate balancing act. For relief to reach the provinces, there must be a measure of security restored. The recent killings of aid workers, American soldiers and attacks on Afghan officials suggest that there aren't enough peacekeeping troops on the ground. It's unrealistic to expect a huge infusion of new troops with Iraq's reconstruction looming. But American and international forces should be consolidated under a single command, with a basic mission: make the country safe.
At the same time, the U.S. must accelerate its training of a new Afghan army to take over as soon as possible. Only a reliable, effective army in Kabul's full control has any hope of counterbalancing the druglords and warlords who apparently enjoy fairly free reign in many provinces of Afghanistan. Realistically, that is still months, if not years, away. The U.S. has so far trained only about 3,000 of an expected force of 70,000. The Americans should also consider recruiting other countries--particularly the British, who have proven effective in such training--to help speed the process.
Building a strong economy and democratic infrastructure in Afghanistan is the surest way to drain the warlords' power. Frustrated by the slowness of reconstruction, and the failure of aid organizations to reach more remote areas, American officials over the winter launched the first of several reconstruction teams, groups of 40 to 60 people, including civil affairs soldiers, State Department diplomats, U.S. Agency for International Development personnel and military contractors. That was long overdue.
Some international aid workers argue that such teams blur the lines between military and humanitarian work and could endanger relief workers. Still, those teams represent the most reasonable way to spread relief beyond Kabul.
In many ways, the rebuilding of Afghanistan is a far greater challenge than Iraq. The latter has a sizeable middle class and had well-established, if corrupt, government institutions. The institutions of state must be created from scratch in Afghanistan. That will take a sustained, invigorated effort by America and its allies. The euphoria of allied victory in Afghanistan has long since faded. Now American resolve is being tested in a different way.
Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune
|
I wouldn't be so concerned about Iraq if we were making progress in Afghanistan... so far the US isn't winning the "peace". The article mentions rebuilding Iraq should be easier, but I'm not so sure. There seems to be more anti-American sentiment in Iraq than in Afghanistan.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2003 15:09
|