Say "cheeeese"!

This past September, when nearly all the world’s leaders were in New York for a meeting of the United Nations, Platon, a staff photographer for the New Yorker, set up a tiny studio off the floor of the General Assembly, and tried to hustle as many of them in front of his lens as possible. The project involved months of work. While immersed on it, some as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fell on the main rule that rulers have asked their photographers and painters for centuries: “Make me look good”.

Results finally are here. I don’t know if Mr. Netanyahu will be pleased with his picture, but there are indeed a few interesting points in the poster. Like for example, seeing together Gordon Brown (UK) and Brian Cowen (Ireland), who look like brothers. And in fact, even their political careers are very similar: both are in a shaky chair after substituting a troubled former leader, and coming from managing the Economics portfolio.

Standing with Cowen, just below is the Czech president Václav Klaus. Surprisingly, it’s not the only time the Czech has been behind Cowen; he signed the Lisbon Treaty -introduced the past Tuesday- only after Ireland passed it. The third one in the mess of Lisbon, Polish President Lech Kaczynski, is also around close to them.

But that’s not the only funny relationship. Ahmadinejad (Iran) and Chávez (Venezuela) are really close too. The same as Netanyahu (Israel), who is on the right of Obama (USA); left for us seeing the poster. Of course, Berlusconi is in the area where all the women in the collage are. Odinga (Kenya) on the other hand, is more reluctant of Kagame (Rwanda), who he observes with caution. And finally, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (Spain) only needs a beret with a red star on his head to look like ‘Che’ Guevara.

The original poster with more info, here.



Did you like it? Share it

Outcasts' land

Three Somalian ministers died and two were severely injured today in an explosion in a hotel in Mogadishu while attending a graduation ceremony. There is no better way to illustrate the degradation of the stability of the UN backed government than that. A government that is only capable of controlling a few packs of the capital, and thanks to the blue berets from the African Union.

A few months ago, when David Axe was reporting from Somalia, he saw a huge tank in the gate of one of the Government compounds. Intrigued, Axe asked one of the commanders of the African peacekeepers, captain Paddy Ankunda, what was the T-55 for. “Not for being used”, Ankunda replied, “but for let the people know we could use them”. Only a month after that they had to use it. And again, only a month after, nine peacekeepers were killed in a double suicide attack, including a Burundian top commander.

Piracy has attracted the attention to the region but it is just a result of the outlaw chaos that reigns in the country area. It wouldn’t exist if a strong government was in place. But the UN backed cabinet is too weak to even defend themselves, as stated today’s attack, not to mention to defend their coastline. A new Somalian Navy is under formation, mirroring the structure of the “Sons of Iraq”, but so far it’s only a few hundred ex-fishermen -and ex-pirates- on the UN payroll sailing on skiffs.

But in Somalia, pirates and the government aren’t the only ones fighting. The al-Sahbab Islamist group, linked to al-Qaeda, is trying to make of Somalia -and Yemen- a regional hub for Islamists. So far, unsuccessfully. Somalia is too remote, too isolated and too xenophobic to become a haven like Afghanistan was. But thanks to the lack of government of any kind, they aren’t disturbed but for occasional skirmishes from Ethiopian troops. And that’s why they are calling for reinforcements. One of al-Qaeda’s most prominent militants, Abu Mansour al-Amriki (the American), lives already there. At least, they don’t like pirates either.

The end of the piracy in the Gulf of Aden is not only in the ocean, but in comprehensive strategies that include also action to support the UN peacekeepers in Mogadishu and the rest of Somalia. The UN has already authorized missions on Somalian soil to pursuit pirates and the government itself has called for support from others countries. Some would say they even begged for an invasion. But with things as they are right now in A'stan, it's unlikely someone else but the African Union will engage the problem. And they are already almost overran.




Did you like it? Share it

Better?

A few months ago I talked in this blog about the new impulse for the Palestinian economy in the West Bank, simbolized by Nablus rebirth. I'm not the only one seeing this, but, then, why not more publicity about it?



Did you like it? Share it

More troops, but still no defined strategy

President Obama announced yesterday he’s determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan. Cool. Now, just define what means “job” and “finish” and then all that will worth something. Until then, it’s all words but strategy in Afghanistan is, so far, sinking fast. And in the lack of ideas, the White House is going back to the traditional solution: more force.

Next Tuesday Obama is expected to unveil -for the first time in prime time- a new boost to the troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The place to announce it will be perfect: West Point military academy. In fact, hours and hours of study and discussions are behind Obama’s decision. The options were between 15,000 and 40,000 extra soldiers. Finally, after several weeks of guessing, almost everyone has narrowed down that number to something between 30,000 and 35,000.

What doesn’t seem to change is the strategy for the war. Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal already warned about that in his timid report from August, little has been done. Karzai is still in the chair and, despite his promises to tackle corruption, it’s unlikely that will happen in his term, let alone in one year as McChrystal would have desired.

But yet, more troops are also needed. But what for? According to McClatchy papers, 23,000 soldiers would go to combat and support operations; 7,000 to develop, strengthen and co-ordinate the southern headquarters; with the rest 4,000 effectives destined to train the Afghan army and police. This increase of troops in Central Asia would mean, according to Spencer Ackerman, the deployment of almost every available battalion in operative theaters, leaving just a few back at home available for duty (see links below).

According to another report from The Washington Independent, in December 2009, a total of 50,600 soldiers and 24,000 National Guards will be available for deployment. The rest will be either in Iraq or Afghanistan or resting back from a tour in a combat zone. In January, those numbers would drop to 12,400 -of which most of them from heavy units (cavalry and tanks)- boots available to deploy in case there is a problem in, let’s say, Korea.

However, it seems yet insufficient, especially regarding the number of trainers. If NATO wants to accomplish its promise of doubling the numbers of the Afghan army, from the present 94,000 effectives to 250,000; the General in charge of the training mission -Lt. Gen Bill Caldwell- will need much more than 4,000 trainers.

As for the rest of the thirty-something thousand troops, the New York Times suggests that 10,000 soldiers could be deployed to Kandahar; 5,000 to Helmand and another 5,000 to the east of the country. His job won’t be easy.

Main target will be to stabilize the south and, once that’s done, recover the control of the rest of the country. Time for that, just until next year’s autumn. McCrhystal warns of it clearly in his August report: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -while Afghan security capacity matures- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible”.

As if those guys didn’t have enough pressure over their shoulders already.


(Available units from the National Guard and the Army now and in the close-mid term)

Afghan National Army soldiers practice firing during a NATO training.
Photo: U.S. Army Sgt. Matthew Moeller, 5th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment


Did you like it? Share it

Definition of "scary"

Did you like it? Share it

Friendly fire 19/10/09

Going green to be greener.

Iran to Russia: where are our missiles?

NK boosts its special forces.

In honor to Jordan: no more 23s.

Sarah Palin still on the frontpages. Literally.

Did you like it? Share it

1983

 
Thanks to the blog Checkpoint Jerusalem, this week I discovered the short movie “1983”. The plot goes around what would happen if before getting into a movie you should pass a security check as those from Ben Gurion international airport. When the reporter Dion Nissenbaum asked the director why the title was “1983”, he answered: “What comes after 1983?” The short movie’s action itself, I’m sure it will be familiar to anyone who has gone through one of these random checkpoints.

Because, let’s face it, Ben Gurion controls are desperating. I remember the case of an old Russian Jew who left Israel swearing to me he will never come back again via the airport. I know as well cases of people being interrogated for hours -and consequently, losing their flights- and going through latex-gloved searches naked in separated rooms. It’s so bad that in the hotels they recommend you to give yourself a reasonable margin of hours in the airport before the flight is scheduled.

For journalists it is even worse. In my last visit to Ben Gurion airport, a French freelance photographer who was about five spaces behind me got suddenly surrounded by five security guards that started to ask him every kind of questions. His Press-labeled jacket and his cameras didn’t help him to pass unnoticed.

It’s obvious that journalists are screened harder because of our job. And trying to get unnoticed not always works. Searches for residual explosives in the clothes or the questions about if we know any Palestinian or we have travelled to other countries in the region are common. That’s why it’s not good to have your Nablus, Jenin or Ramallah sources in your agenda or your phone. Also, the trip from the security check to the plane is usually made with an -unwanted- escort.

Luckily, sometimes it gives you the chance to have a good time.

Once, in the baggage control check, my cover as tourist got blast. The beautiful girl examining my backpack didn’t believe me when she saw my cameras, lenses, laptop and all kind of notebooks with notes. Instantly she made me take all my things out of the backpack and the suitcase. All of it. Even what was on my clothes' pockets ended over the table.

When she reached the lateral pocket of my backpack, and started to put everything over the table, the fun started. Several condoms, almost a full pack -I hadn’t time to use as many as I wanted-, started to come out. As they were coming out, the girl’s face was turning more and more red and she was saying lower and lower her shameful “I’m sorries”. Of course, all that was provoking a more and more wider joker smile on me. With more shame on her side than on mine, the screening ended up much sooner than expected, putting as fast as she could everything back in my suitcase.

I was lucky, but it’s not always like that. The official reason for the screenings is that it is for our own security. Like to avoid any bad guy putting a tic-tac bomb inside the souvenir we got from Hebron or Bethlehem. But all the process is less than charming. And after a few similar experiences, you start to question yourself if it ever works.

In fact, as Dion Nissenbaum tells, is difficult to believe Ben Gurion controls are for security reasons only. You start to think if they are not to harass the travelers -especially Arabs or journalists, among others. Or even worse; just a way to gather intelligence.

1983 from Modi on Vimeo.

Did you like it? Share it

The decade in 7 minutes

From now on, we will start to see lots of videos like this one. A summary of the decade; the ten first years of the 21st century... All will be more or less the same. Here is the first one, made by Newsweek:



Did you like it? Share it

Report: Situation in Lebanon getting worse

Hezbollah could be rearming for a future conflict with Israel, according to The Observer and Haaretz. The news came in just after Israel seized a cargo ship loaded with rockets and missiles, supposedly for the Shiite Lebanese militia.

“Of course we are rearming”, said in condition of anonymity a Hezbollah official to the Londoner newspaper. “We have more rockets and missiles than [we had] in 2006”, he adds. According to this same source, the Lebanese guerrilla would be expecting an attack from the south soon, if not this winter in the spring, when the ground would be hard enough to maintain the weight of the Israeli tanks. And facts are that indeed, the IDF has been moving around and concentrating forces in the north of the country.

But for now, the main target for Israel is still Iran. However, that doesn’t take Lebanon out of the table. Some analyst, suggest that it even make it more likely to be attacked. Initial intelligence reports pointed out that any successful operation in Iran should be started with an attack on Hezbollah, to diminish their ability to disrupt normal life in Israel northern territories. Now with the Shiite militiamen in the concentration government, that threat is seen in Israel as even greater.

Last war in Lebanon was in 2006, when Hezbollah fighters infiltrated in Israel and kidnapped two Jewish soldiers and the IDF counterattacked heavily. After that, the FINUL, an interim international force, was deployed in the area. But the FINUL has been recently eroded from the inside, with arguments between their members about the leadership of the mission. Spain wants to get the lead in 2010 -as agreed- but Italy, currently in charge of the mission, doesn’t seem to be keen to do so after Israel asked them to keep it.

If anything new starts, the FINUL could be between two fires and without a clear leadership in the spring. Perfect time for an attack or a provocation from any of the parts involved.

More in here.




Did you like it? Share it

Extra: IAEA documents on Iran

You can find here the documents the IAEA will release soon on Iranian new Qom nuclear site.


Did you like it? Share it