worldpolicy.org

Last week, the United States welcomed the re-election of Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who won the nationwide presidential election by an 18 percent margin over opposition leader General Sarath Fonseka.

In a statement issued after the final results were announced, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs P. J. Crowley commended the country for “the first nationwide election held in decades.” Despite cautious praise of the electoral process, what remains to be seen in this deeply divided nation is whether the second term policies of this administration will be truly “free and fair.”

Under the rule of President Rajapaksa (and his three brothers), the ruling party has been credited with ending the 30-year civil war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In the process of this brutal military campaign, it also earned widespread condemnation for its disregard for human rights norms, rampant corruption, and excessive militarization. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Rajapaksa regime will interpret the election results as a renewed mandate to reinforce its policies of the past.

Even more unfortunate, however, is the reality that Sri Lanka’s presidential system (which both candidates claimed they would abolish) provides virtually no checks and balances on the all but unrestricted power of the executive branch. Capitalizing on this power, the president has already declared that he will dissolve Parliament in an effort to secure a ruling coalition to reinforce his decisions.

While Rajapaksa’s leadership will now last for six more years, it is likely that severe internal and external challenges facing the regime will emerge in the very near future. Read the rest of this entry »

America’s rapprochement with India, and its centerpiece nuclear agreement, is a bright star in the otherwise murky firmament of the George W. Bush years. India is a large power; it is a secular, democratic power, not influenced by Islamist radicalism. Its large Muslim population of 140 million seems generally—so far—not attracted to that kind of fanaticism.

India is a country with a population of 1.17 billion whose numbers are destined to exceed those of China by 2050. (Pakistan’s population, much smaller, but not insignificant, is roughly 180 million). The advantage of the U.S.-India rapprochement, in the short and medium term, lies in the fact that this huge country is right next to a string of Muslim countries whose populations are generally (though not universally) hostile to U.S. interests.

Because of the strategic importance that the United States places on both India and its troubled sister, Pakistan, policymakers in Washington have periodically tried to play the role of peacemaker in the region, hoping to push both nuclear-armed countries to resolve the bad blood between them—which, for the most part, has revolved around the contested province of Kashmir.

In 2009, U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke reportedly tried to include India in his Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) portfolio, which seemed to mean that he wanted to take a crack at the Kashmir problem. The Indians, however, would have none of it, and AfPak remains limited to the two nations that make up the somewhat unwieldy conjunction.

Indian relief map of the Line of Control

Steve Coll, in a New Yorker article on March 2, 2009, brought to light a parallel or “back” channel in Indo-Pak negotiations that took place during the regime of Pervez Musharraf. If the discussions had succeeded, and it appears they came close, it could have resulted in a sort of free movement of populations across the Kashmiri line of separation—without a change of sovereignty between the advantageous Indian and unimpressive Pakistani portions. However, Musharraf went into a political tailspin after his dispute with the Pakistan judiciary and had to leave office in August 2008. With his departure, the talks seem to have ended. Ironically, according to Coll, the Indians had come to trust Musharraf, despite the fact that he was the main instigator of the abortive Pakistani attack at Kargil, in Kashmir, in 1999.

The arrangement nearly worked out reflects the Indian insistence that the line of separation (called the Line of Control) must not be altered, as this could affect the status of the Indian-held Valley of Kashmir, the beautiful “jewel in the crown” of the whole affair. Moreover, from the Indian point of view, ceding any part of Indian-held Kashmir, in what would be seen as stemming from religious reasons, would compromise the Indian political philosophy of secular government.

In any event, a settlement now seems extremely unlikely in the short term, especially after the horrific attacks on Mumbai in November 2008 which originated in Pakistan. As long as Kashmir remains as it is, unequally divided, Islamabad will likely never be satisfied, which means we can expect more Pakistani agitation inside India and an increasingly stronger riposte from New Delhi. There is definitely a fear that the two Pakistan-sponsored terrorist groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are not only still active; worse, extrapolating from the attack on Mumbai, these groups may have set their sights on more ambitious targets, unleashing havoc within India’s metropolitan cities rather than engaging India’s massive deployments in Jammu and Kashmir.

So where do things stand now? Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. military on Friday began its first major offensive against the Taliban since President Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan on Tuesday. Operation Cobra’s Anger comprises 900 American Marines and British soldiers from Task Force Helmand, and 150 Afghan soldiers. In concert with the combat assault, a small contingent was dropped behind Taliban lines in northern Now Zad Valley—once a bustling market city of 30,000 that after years of fighting is a ghost town, home only to poppy fields—to disrupt Taliban communications and supply lines. Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier reported from Camp Leatherneck in Helmand: “Right now, the enemy is confused and disorganized. They’re fighting, but not too effectively.” Pelletier also reported that the coalition uncovered several arms caches and at least 400 pounds of explosives. Earlier on Friday, after a summit in Brussels, 25 NATO countries pledged 7,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan, which will bring the combined U.S.-NATO forces to about 150,000 by this summer. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told delegates at NATO headquarters that the coming year would “see a new momentum in this mission.” Most of the additional U.S. soldiers will be deployed to the south and east, against the insurgency’s strongholds, whereas most of the additional NATO soldiers will be deployed to the north and west to defend against Taliban incursions and to begin political and economic development. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will host a special summit on Afghanistan for all troop-contributing nations in London on January 28.

Russia and the United States failed to reach a new agreement on nuclear arms as the midnight expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) looms, but both sides say they want a new weapons reduction treaty to come into force as soon as possible. START, which is set to expire at midnight on December 4, is an arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush in 1991. It has led to the removal and destruction of about 80 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons and has also provided an important framework for verification, which will cease to formally exist when the treaty expires. But the Kremlin issued a statement on behalf of the U.S. and Russian presidents on Friday, emphasizing their “commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together in the spirit of the START treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enter into force at the earliest possible date.” The Russian Foreign Ministry said “intensive work” on a new treaty is ongoing and that “preparations for the signing are coming to a close,” but details of a new agreement have not been finalized. Washington has expressed its determination to establish a new agreement by the end of the year, and hopes to agree on an arms reduction treaty by the time President Obama travels to Oslo next week to accept his Nobel Peace Prize.

Settlers in the West Bank rejected a personal plea from Israel’s prime minister to respect his 10-month construction freeze, vowing to defy the law and resist any attempts to enforce it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a moratorium on building new settlements in the West Bank last week, which settler leaders responded to with a civil disobedience campaign that has blocked inspectors from entering the settlements. “You have the right to demonstrate. You have the right to protest,” Netanyahu told settler leaders in a meeting on Thursday, according to a statement released by his office. “You have the right to express an opinion, but it’s unacceptable not to respect a decision that was taken by law.” He did, however, promise that building work could resume after the 10 month-freeze was lifted. The temporary and limited halt to settlement construction is designed to draw Palestinian negotiators to resume peace talks. In his meeting with the settlers, Netanyahu “stressed that this is the optimum decision for Israel at this time, if you look at the overall strategic reality,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the prime minister. “This is our confidence-building measure. Now it is in the Palestinians’ court. We have moved in an unprecedented manner, and it is time for them to respond.” The Palestinians contend that the new building restrictions do not go far enough, particularly because they only apply to construction in the West Bank and not to East Jerusalem, as well. But the settlers contend that the moratorium represents “the beginning of the end,” and they have scheduled a mass demonstration for next week in Jerusalem.

The dollar strengthened on Friday against both the yen and the euro after U.S. labor statistics reported that U.S. job losses in November were less than 10 percent of the expected figure. Gold, in turn, which strengthened to a record high on Thursday after rallying for weeks against expectations for a falling dollar, weakened slightly on Friday along with other metals. The dollar appears to be recovering from hitting a 14-year low against the Japanese yen last week, and is likely to continue strengthening as the United States further emerges from the recession, with job growth—and the recent less-than-expected job losses a small but encouraging sign—viewed as a principal indicator of future economic gains. Similarly, the Canadian dollar rose after Canada reported a jobs increase of 79,000, far more than expected. The stock markets responded positively to the labor markets. Upon the opening bell on Wall Street on Friday, the S&P 500, the NASDAQ composite, and the Dow Jones all hit intra-day highs for the year. Overseas, London’s FTSE 100 rose 1 percent and the FTSE Eurofirst 300 added 1.7 percent. UBS’ director of floor operations at the NYSE, Art Cashin, said of the U.S. employment statistics, “Santa Clause may have come early with this number.”

President Barack Obama’s long-awaited shift in strategy on the war in Afghanistan has received praise from European leaders, but getting more troops from them to help support the additional 30,000 U.S. forces now planned for deployment may prove more difficult. While British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged 500 more troops in Afghanistan, and NATO promised at least 5,000 more, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in an interview that he would send “not a single solider more.” However, the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior French official saying President Sarkozy may reconsider. Germany, which has 4,400 troops in Afghanistan, said it would be ready to do more police training but was reluctant to commit more troops. The deployment will bring the total number of American troops to 98,000, while Britain will now have about 10,000 soldiers in the region. U.S. officials have said they’re looking for an additional 5,000 to 7,000 troops from allies. The Taliban released a statement following President Obama’s announcement, saying the extra troops “will provoke stronger resistance and fighting. [The U.S. forces] will withdraw shamefully.”

In an apparent attempt to crack down on inflation and its small but growing free market economy, North Korea revalued its currency and froze all cash transactions. The move, the first in 17 years by North Korea, caused confusion within the country, according to reports. The official exchange rate between the old won and the new is now 100 to one. Some analysts see the burgeoning free market economy threatening Kim Jong-Il’s hold on power and that the aim of the revaluation is to redistribute wealth throughout the country—a single family will reportedly be allowed to hold no more than 150,000 new won (roughly $1100) in hard currency. According to reports, all cash enterprises and services have been suspended by the government. North Korea took tentative steps to liberalize its economy after a famine in the late 1990s. Since then, the black market economy has grown and illicit currency exchanges have profited. The move seems intended to wipe clean the fortunes of these underground entrepreneurs and reestablish a more “perfect” socialist state.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) began public hearings on the legality of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, which Pristina declared in February, 2008. Kosovo, which had been under a provisional UN administration since 1999, has been recognized as independent by 63 countries (including the United States) since its unilateral secession, and is expected to argue that it was never part of Serbia. “Kosovo’s independence is irreversible and that will remain the case, not only for the sake of Kosovo, but also for the sake of sustainable regional peace and security,” Kosovo’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Skender Hyensi said on Tuesday. “We are certain the court will confirm the will of Kosovo’s people to be independent and free.” Serbia, however, has argued that Kosovo’s secession was a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and has claimed the move was ethnically motivated and thus illegal under international law. The UN General Assembly had asked the ICJ, which is the United Nations’ highest judicial body, for an advisory ruling on the matter at the request of Serbia. The ICJ will hear testimony from 29 countries over the next nine days before issuing its ruling. Though it will not be binding, the decision is expected to set a precedent for other secessionist movements around the world, such as in Chechnya and Basque Country in Spain.

In another jab at the United States and its Western allies, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would enrich its uranium itself rather than send it to Russia and France under a UN-brokered deal. The agreement was supposed to calm fears over Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon by offering Tehran the option of letting foreign countries (which already possess enrichment technology) process Iranian uranium. This would theoretically prevent Iran from developing its own indigenous capacity for enrichment, and would ensure that the uranium provided to Iran’s civil nuclear program would fall short of levels required for weapons production. But Iran has repeatedly been backing down from the UN deal. “The Iranian nation will produce 20 percent enriched uranium and anything it needs (itself),” President Ahmadinejad said. He also called the recent International Atomic Energy Agency censure of Iran’s secret construction of a second enrichment plant “illegal.” “The Zionist regime [Israel] and its backer [the United States] cannot do a damn thing to stop Iran’s nuclear work,” he said.

Iranian Press TV reported on Sunday Iran’s intention to construct ten additional uranium enrichment facilities. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has requested Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity for domestic use through 500,000 additional centrifuges by 2020. Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi explained that the decision was a direct response to the recent criticisms from the United Nations, and especially the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany). “We had no intention of building many facilities like the Natanz site,” Salehi said, “but apparently the West doesn’t want to understand Iran’s peaceful message.” In Paris, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner labeled Iran’s decision “a bit childish.” Also on Sunday, more than 200 members of the Iranian parliament signed a letter urging Ahmadinejad to restrict the IAEA’s presence in Iran, and some called for Iran’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Withdrawal would eliminate the West’s already limited inspection capability in Iran, but in so doing would signal malicious intent—beyond Iran’s stated peaceful intent for civilian energy—that might prompt harsher sanctions and perhaps even preemptive military action from Israel or others. As to Iran’s peaceful nuclear power generators, Russian sources told Reuters on Monday that the Bushehr plant—which Iran has contracted to Russia for an estimated $1 billion—will likely begin generating electricity in March 2010, coinciding with the Russian New Year.

Results from the Honduran presidential election, in which voters have appeared to reject President Manuel Zelaya, are putting the United States and Brazil at odds over the future of the Latin American nation. Zelaya, who was ousted from the presidency in a military coup in June, apparently lost to opponent Porfirio Lobo, who according to provisional election results won about 56 percent of the vote. The United States praised the vote; a U.S. State Department spokesman said the “the Honduran people took a necessary and important step forward.” But Brazil, which has hosted Zelaya in its embassy in Tegucigalpa since mid-September, said it would not recognize the results because of the military coup. “Brazil will maintain its position because it’s not possible to accept a coup,” said Brazilian president Luiz Inacio da Silva. Zelaya has called the election a “fraud” and tried to get Hondurans to boycott the vote.

The government of Dubai announced on Monday that it will not guarantee the debt of the investment firm Dubai World. The Director General of Dubai’s finance department, Abdulrahman al-Saleh, warned that creditors are responsible for their own lending decisions. “Creditors need to take part of the responsibility for their decision to lend to the companies. They think Dubai World is part of the government, which is not correct.” The federal United Arab Emirates (UAE) pledged cautiously on Monday to lend to Dubai banks, hoping to allay a crisis of confidence similar to, if on a far smaller scale, that which crippled the global economy last fall. “We will look at Dubai’s commitments and approach them on a case-by-case basis,” an anonymous UAE official told the press. “It does not mean that Abu Dhabi will underwrite all of their debts.” The Dubai finance department last week requested a six-month standstill on all Dubai World debts, including that of its property development subsidiary, Nakheel, totaling some $59 billion. Dubai World, a major impetus for Dubai’s stellar economic growth, had invested in lavish real estate projects, including artificial islands in the Persian Gulf and properties in Manhattan and Las Vegas. The standstill request surprised global investors who believed, and were told by Dubai officials, that the emirate would face no financial troubles in the near future. Mr. Saleh cautioned that global markets were overreacting to the news of Dubai’s standstill request and that, while firms will take losses in the near future, they will emerge stronger as the government restructures the businesses.

Trade chiefs from over 150 countries gathered in Geneva as the World Trade Organization (WTO) opened its first ministerial conference in four years. The conference, which commenced on Monday, was arranged as “a platform for ministers to review the functioning” of the multilateral trade body, said Director-General Pascal Lamy. Though it is not a negotiating forum, Lamy still urged the ministers to speed up their progress on the eight-year-old Doha Development Round, the WTO’s currently stalled round of trade negotiations. “The best way of strengthening the [international trade] system is concluding this round,” said Lamy, as world leaders set a new 2010 target to conclude the process. “Now we need action, concrete and practical action, to close the remaining gaps.” Developing countries echoed his call for urgency; the Cairns group, an alliance of 19 nations that account for more than 25 percent of the world’s agricultural exports, expressed its dismay at the lack of progress on Doha. The group of 33 developing countries (dubbed the G-33) also called for action, noting that it would stand firm to preserve developing-country interests as the Doha round proceeds, particularly on the contentious special safeguard mechanism (SSM)—the right to retain protective tariffs on agriculture should imports surge or prices drastically fall—that led to last year’s breakdown in talks. The conference (which will conclude on Wednesday) is set to address other trade-related issues as well, such as improving the resolution of trade disputes, preventing protectionism, enlarging membership, and cooperating with other international organizations.

This article was originally published in The Huffington Post.

While the administration rolled out the red carpet to welcome Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington this week, the real action wasn’t around the elegantly set tables at the Obama’s first state dinner. It was across the street at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That’s right: the same folks who are spending millions to fight any government action to prevent climate change are about to be put in charge of the relationship between two of the countries most essential to finding solutions for that and other pressing global challenges.

As Robert Blake, assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia put it at an “India Day” celebration at defense and communications giant Honeywell: “The most important part of our relationship is that increasingly governments matter less and less and it’s more about empowering the private sector and our businesses, our scientists, educators so that they can all work together to achieve great things.” Honeywell’s CEO David Cote is the head of the newly expanded India-U.S. CEO Forum, which met during the Indian prime minister’s visit.

The India side is headed by Ratan Tata, one of seven Indian CEOs who accompanied the prime minister. On Monday, Nov. 23, Prime Minister Singh addressed the U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC); part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the biggest lobbyist for the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which saw final approval in the last weeks of the George W. Bush administration. In fact, to clear one of the last remaining hurdles of the deal, the Indian cabinet just green-lighted a provision to make immune from liability U.S. nuclear plant builders in the event of an accident. This is no small feat in a country that still hasn’t gotten over the Union Carbide poisonous gas leak in Bhopal, the worst industrial accident in history. The bill must still pass India’s parliament.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has identified five pillars of the U.S.-India relationship: strategy, agriculture, health care, science and technology, and education. In all cases, the Obama administration is putting the private sector in the driver’s seat. As Robert Blake put it at meeting in Washington last Wednesday, Nov. 18: “[T]he Obama administration would really like to do much more to try to engage the private sector, both in private-public partnerships, but also in advising and working with both governments, to see how we can make the private sector portion bring the private sector to the fore in all of these dialogues.” Read the rest of this entry »

It could have been a powerful image—America’s first multicultural president promoting the benefits of an ethnically diverse society to the Chinese—but during his trip to China this week, Barack Obama chose to steer clear of comments that could be perceived as lecturing the Chinese on their (poor) human rights record, and that included any reference to their treatment of their Tibetan and Uyghur ethnic minorities.

Lecturing another country on their shortcomings during a state visit is usually a diplomatic no-no.  Unfortunately, for the past year the Obama Administration has generally taken the position that silence is golden when it comes to China and the issue of human rights, including not meeting with the Dalai Lama when he visited the United States last month. For the Chinese, the Dalai Lama is an international irritant, a highly visible spokesman reminding the world of China’s ongoing attempts to eradicate the indigenous Tibetan culture and replace it with an ethnic Han Chinese one.

Due north of Tibet, China is engaging in a much lower-profile, but just as tenacious, cultural eradication campaign against the Uyghur community in Xinjiang, China’s northwestern-most province. The Uyghurs, a Turkic people practicing the Muslim faith, have lived in the region for well over a millennia; their empire once stretched over a broad swath of Central Asia. Today the Uyghurs find themselves a minority within what’s officially called the “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region” of China.

It is the result of a process that started more than 60 years ago when the Uyghurs’ briefly-independent nation of “East Turkestan” was gobbled up by Beijing and the People’s Liberation Army in 1949, a mere five years after its founding.  In 1949, just 7 percent of Xinjiang’s population was Han Chinese, but today that figure is over 40 percent—the result, the Uyghurs say, of an aggressive Han resettlement policy orchestrated by Beijing. The Chinese government meanwhile has opposed the teaching of the Uyghur language, closed mosques, arrested Uyghur religious and cultural leaders, and, the Uyghurs claim, kept them from getting jobs in their homeland, prompting a large migration of Uyghurs from Xinjiang.  (Uyghurs now make up just 45 percent of the population in their “Autonomous Region.”) Read the rest of this entry »

Representatives from the P5+1 met on Friday in response to Iran’s rejection of the uranium enrichment proposal earlier this week. In a joint statement released at the conclusion of the meeting, the P5+1 “urge[d] Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement, and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations.” U.S. President Barack Obama will likely push for sanctions against Iran in the coming weeks. He elicited a bland but significant statement of support from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday in Singapore but failed to win a similar statement from Chinese President Hu Jintao during Obama’s nine-day tour in Asia. A senior EU official confirmed that sanctions were discussed at the meeting but not in specific, actionable terms. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), suggested that Iran’s Wednesday announcement should not necessarily be considered that nation’s final, written decision. “What I got is an oral response [from Tehran], basically saying we need to keep all the material in Iran until we get the fuel [rods].” Dr. ElBaradei lamented, “I would hate to see that we are moving back to sanctions because…sanctions are going to make things much worse.”

South Korean officials indicated Friday that they will not renegotiate its free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States signed in June 2007. Some U.S. officials and members of Congress believe the FTA, which is yet to be ratified, does not sufficiently balance South Korea’s $13 billion trade surplus, especially in the automotive industry. South Korea exports nearly 100 times the number of vehicles to the United States that it imports from American auto manufacturers. President Lee Myung-bak, welcoming President Obama to Seoul on Thursday, suggested he was willing to hear U.S. complaints about the agreement, which became a heated point of debate during the U.S. presidential elections and in Congress. “There’s a tendency to lump all of Asia together when Congress looks at trade agreements and says it appears this is a one-way street,” said Obama, in conciliatory remarks. On Friday, Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan emphasized that President Lee’s comments did not offer “renegotiation.” The Korea Institute for International Economic Policy estimated the FTA would boost South Korea’s long-term growth by 6 percent, creating 340,000 jobs; similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated the FTA would create 350,000 American jobs. Also on Friday, South Korea announced plans to ease rules on domestic investment and foreign entry, in hopes of dramatically increasing tourism and foreign investment.

The Chinese government came under scrutiny Thursday after secret scholarships awarded to children of Namibian officials were revealed. According to The New York Times, scholarships to study in China were given to the children of nine top Namibian officials, including the defense minister and President Hifikepunye Pohamba. First revealed by the Namibian tabloid Informante, the scholarship scandal unleashed a wave of fury from civil society groups and youth organizations, who say that it is unconscionable for well-paid officials to accept the scholarships while only one out of six high school graduates in Namibia is able to attend college. “Only senior people in government knew about the scholarships,” said Norman Tjombe, director of the nonprofit Legal Assistance Center. “No chance was given at all to the general public.” The budding relationship between China and Namibia, cemented through lucrative development deals, is already under scrutiny by Namibian prosecutors, and many now wonder if the scholarships are merely a Chinese attempt to buy influence from Namibia’s leadership to win more contracts for its companies that seek to do business there. “How is it that this favor just comes like manna from heaven?” Elijan Nguare, secretary general of Namibian governing party Swapo’s youth league, told The New York Times. “Clearly there must be something that they are after.” Government agencies in China have not commented as of this writing, but Namibia’s anti-corruption commission began an inquiry into how the scholarships were awarded.

U.S. officials unveiled a new detention facility at Bagram air field in Afghanistan, promising greater openness and better living conditions for inmates. The existing facility at Bagram has been shrouded in secrecy, garnering criticism for human rights abuses after two of its inmates died last year following interrogations. The prison, which holds its roughly 700 detainees without charges, will close by the end of the year, and the U.S. military plans to move its inmates to the new $60 million housing complex. “The new facility…provides improved detainee living conditions…as well as vocational, technical, and other programs to assist with peaceful reintegration of released detainees,” Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, head of the detention facilities at Bagram, told international journalists on a tour of the new facility, tentatively named Detention Facility in Parwan, on Sunday. “You are here because transparency certainly benefits the effort.” Human rights groups have praised some aspects of the new facility, including the separation of hard-core insurgents from those who may be reconciled with society and the move to open administrative hearings, in which detainees are assessed for their readiness to be released, to outsiders as well as to the detainees themselves. But many critics still call for President Barack Obama to further reform the U.S.’ Afghan detention policies. “All detainees in Afghanistan are entitled to minimum protections, including the right to legal counsel, and to be able to challenge the legal and factual basis for the detention before an independent and impartial tribunal,” rights groups Amnesty International, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch said in a joint statement. “The U.S. reforms still fall short of providing detainees with those rights.” Transfers of prisoners to the new facility are expected to begin within the next two weeks.

Israeli officials on Monday continued to denounce the Palestinian Authority’s intention to unilaterally declare statehood and seek formal recognition from the United Nations. Senior Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, announced the gambit on Saturday and, on Sunday—the twenty-first anniversary of Yasser Arafat’s declaration of statehood—President Mahmoud Abbas added, “God willing, we will soon have an independent state with its capital in [East] Jerusalem” under 1967 borders. Many observers consider the proposal a political tactic to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to reengage peace negotiations, stalled since the Gaza war last December, and restrict further settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. An Al Jazeera reporter in Ramallah relayed, “What [Palestinians] want [now] is something a lot more concrete. They know it won’t immediately result in the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops from their territory, but they want the Israelis to stand in front of an international collective will that says this is what needs to be done in order for peace to be realized.” The statements incited a furor of criticisms from the Israeli government. Netanyahu declared, “Any unilateral action will undo the framework of past accords and lead to unilateral actions from Israel.” Transport Minister Yisrael Katz later added, “Let them not threaten us with unilateral measures; we can also take unilateral measures such as annexing the settlement blocs.” Without U.S. support, the Palestinian proposal is not likely to be approved by the requisite two-thirds of the UN General Assembly.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull offered a landmark apology to hundreds of thousands of “forgotten Australians” and former child migrants who were abused or neglected in state facilities. In an emotional ceremony in the capital of Canberra, Rudd apologized for what he called “an ugly chapter” in Australia’s history. “The truth is this is an ugly story, and its ugliness must be told without fear or favor if we are to confront fully the demons of our past,” he said to a crowd at Parliament House. “We are sorry. Sorry for the tragedy—the absolute tragedy—of childhoods lost,” he continued. Between 1930 and 1970, approximately 500,000 children were abused or neglected in orphanages or homes in the Australian institutional care system. Of these, many were part of the Child Migrants Program, a scheme designed to bring “good white stock” to Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. Under the program, the United Kingdom sent poor children to these countries promising a “better life.” But, in many cases, families were never notified that their children had been sent away, the children were falsely informed that they were orphans, and, once they arrived, they faced extreme cruelty and neglect while in state care. “You were failed by the system of care,” Turnbull added, choking back tears. “Today we acknowledge that, already feeling alone, abandoned and left without love, many of you were beaten and abused, physically, sexually, mentally—treated like objects not people—leaving you to feel of even less worth…For far too long, your stories were not believed when they should have been, and for that too we apologize, and we are sorry.” Roughly 7,000 survivors of the program currently live in Australia, including Laurie Humphreys, who attended Rudd’s apology. “The word ’sorry’ doesn’t mean much. You can’t say sorry for a lost childhood,” the former child migrant worker told Time magazine. “But you can acknowledge it, and that’s what I needed.” U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to offer a similar apology sometime in the new year.

Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission on Monday declared incumbent Hamid Karzai “the elected President of Afghanistan” for a second five-year term. The announcement comes one day after rival Abdullah Abdullah announced his withdrawal from a runoff planned for November 7. The second round balloting was canceled Monday morning after Abdullah withdrew. The number two finisher in the initial balloting on August 20 said he did not consider the Independent Election Commission to have been sufficiently reformed that a fair runoff could be guranteed, free from the widespread fraud that marked the first election round. The United States, Britain, and the United Nations each promptly issued congratulatory statements to President Karzai as the elected head of state, and others are expected to follow. Analysts believe, however, that American officials will continue to lead an intense diplomatic effort to reconcile the two candidates’ supporters and unify the country, perhaps through Karzai offering Abdullah a senior office in his administration. In a surprise visit to Kabul Monday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon exhorted Karzai to “move swiftly to form a government that is able to command the support of both the Afghan people and the international community.” Speaking at his home after the press conference, Dr. Abdullah rejected any suggestion of joining Karzai’s administration—he had formerly served as Karzai’s Foreign Minister but left after a bitter falling out—and said of his withdrawal, “I did it with a lot of pain, but at the same time with a lot of hope for the future.  Because this will not be the end of anything, this will be a new beginning.” President Obama is scheduled to lead two National Security Council meetings at the White House on Afghanistan this week as he further considers his administration’s policy and further troop commitments. These deliberations had been clouded by uncertainty over the Afghan administration that would emerge from the election process.

The Pakistani military announced Monday it has captured the towns of Kaniguram, Cheena, and Makeen, strategic Taliban strongholds in the South Waziristan region of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The military, which began its current offensive on October 17, has reportedly cleared the captured areas of all insurgents, mines, and improvised explosive devices. The Pakistani government is now offering rewards totaling $5 million for information leading to the capture of Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and 17 other Taliban leaders. Meanwhile, bombings continued to shake Pakistan on Monday, largely in response to the ongoing military offensive, as one bomb near military headquarters in Rawalpindi killed 30 people, including military officers and some civilians, in a crowded pedestrian area; and. Additionally, two suicide bombings at a security checkpoint in Lahore, Pakistan’s cultural center, killed a policeman and injured 25 civilians. A series of ten bombings have killed more than 300 Pakistani civilians since mid-October.

North Korea again pressed the United States to open direct bilateral talks, warning that it was prepared to “go its own way” with its nuclear program should Washington remain unresponsive. “It’s time for the United States to make a decision,” an unidentified spokesman for North Korea’s Foreign Ministry told the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday. “We have made it clear that we are ready to take part in multilateral talks, including the six-party talks, depending on the results of talks with the United States . . . If the United States is not ready to sit down face-to-face with us for talks, we cannot but go on our own way,” he added. The statement follows a rare meeting between Ri Gun, North Korea’s deputy nuclear envoy, and Sung Kim, the American special envoy on the North’s nuclear disarmament, in New York and San Diego last week. After months of defiance, North Korea has recently signaled a willingness to return to disarmament negotiations. Last month, it reaffirmed its invitation for Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, to visit Pyongyang. Leader Kim Jong-Il also told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last month that his country would consider a return to multilateral negotiations, which stalled in April after Pyongyang quit the forum and later conducted nuclear and long-range missile tests. But the North maintained that any return to the six-party framework; which brings together envoys from North Korea, the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea; depended on the progress of bilateral talks with Washington. to amend “hostile relations.” North Korea’s spokesman reiterated this on Monday, saying “the direct parties, which are the North and the United States, must first sit down and find a rational solution . . . [If the two countries] end the hostile relationship and build trust, there will be a meaningful step toward the denuclearizing of the Korean peninsula.” But whether this will be enough to convince the Obama administration to meet one-on-one is unclear; Washington has said it will only agree to direct talks as part of a resumption of the broader, six-party dialogue.

The UN suspended its support for army units operating in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, accusing the Congolese army of deliberately killing more than 60 civilians this year. After a tour of the region, UN peackeeping chief Alain Le Roy said the army had “clearly targeted” civilians, and that the United Nations mission in DR Congo (MONUC) would “immediately suspend its logistical and operational support to the army units implicated” in civilian killings between May and December. Congolese government spokesman Lambert Mende objected to the decision, saying the investigation was still ongoing. “We are surprised that the United Nations has announced sanctions against these units even before the conclusion of their investigation,” he said on Monday, warning that a withdrawal of support could destabilize the army. MONUC has backed the Congolese army in its military operations against Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels since January, and has provided logistical assistance in the east since a joint Rwandan and Congolese military operation was launched against against the rebel group in March. But the operation has come under widespread criticism for human rights abuses. According to human rights groups, more than 1,000 civilians have been killed, more than 7,000 women and girls raped, and more than 900,000 people forced to flee their homes since operations began in January.

Delegates from 180 countries are gathered in Barcelona today for five days of negotiations toward drafting a successor treaty to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol in advance of the symbolic Copenhagen Conference to be held December 7-18. The Barcelona preparatory round is aimed at reconciling an apparent impasse over the contentious issue of technology financing to developing nations. Strains were evident last week when the European Commission agreed that the cost of helping developing nations to reduce carbon emissions by 2020 would total about $150 billion, but talks became stalemated over the question of which nations would pay which proportion of those costs. Central and Eastern European nations, for example, which depend heavily on coal-fired power generation, warned they could not afford to pay in proportion to their emissions. Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said that a full legally-binding treaty is unlikely at Copenhagen, but he noted that he was still convinced a political deal was possible. Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard noted wryly, “Failure is the only thing we can’t afford.”