Chris Kenny writes:

Rodger Shanahan makes clear his revulsion at the 'tragedy of the Iraqi adventure' and the audacity of anyone finding something positive to say about ongoing efforts to stabilise that country's future.

But he dances around the one point I made about Obama's Iraq policy; that is, simply, that the orderly withdrawal of US troops owes more to the success of George W Bush's surge strategy than to any decisions taken by the Obama Administration.

I pointed out that Democrats and our own Labor Party opposed the surge strategy and preferred a humiliating exit for the US. This would have seen the US leave in unambiguous defeat, it would have left Iraq in an even more precarious position and it would have emboldened terrorists everywhere.

Whatever Shanahan thinks of Bush's original decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, perhaps he would at least concede that the surge strategy has allowed an orderly American drawdown and a more stable platform for the establishment of a democratic Iraq.

On Afghanistan, the criticism from the Left has been that the Taliban flourished because the US was distracted by Iraq. So Obama's commitment to allocate sufficient resources and focus to Afghanistan is welcome. Facing such seemingly insoluble conflicts it may seem trite to talk of victory and defeat, except to note, as George Orwell said, that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

Part one here; part two here; part three here.

And finally, to the Levant. Hopes were high following the pro-West coalition's 'victory' in the June 2009 elections that Lebanon would stay in the Western camp and cease to be hostage to external actors, but most realistic observers of Lebanon understand that elections are one thing and influence another.

On that score, the departure of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt from the coalition in August and the inability to form a 'national unity' government under Sa'ad Hariri until November (as portfolio distribution was incessantly debated) showed how little Lebanon was in control of its destiny. As if to confirm that Syria was a main player in Lebanon again, Sa'ad Hariri visited Damascus in December. But despite the political infighting and shaky security, Beirut is still Beirut and so Lebanon enjoyed its most successful tourism season ever in 2009.
 
While the new year began with the normal sabre-rattling involving Hizbullah, this year international conflict involving Lebanon may take place not on its border with Israel, but in New York as it takes up its place for the next two years as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. With votes likely this year on sanctions against Iran and the Hariri tribunal, there are fears that Lebanon's voting patterns may favour Syria and Iran, and place it in conflict with many of the Government's Western aid donors.  
 
Over the mountains, things are looking up for Syria in 2010. It is being wooed heavily to distance itself from Iran, it has enjoyed increased influence in Lebanon, a reciprocal visit from Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, and the US announcement of its first ambassador to Damascus for nearly five years. Not bad for doing nothing.

Part one here; part two here.

Iraq (remember that place? It used to be in the news quite a bit) is the one country in the Middle East which could see significant developments in 2010, but I'm not sure whether the net effect will be particularly good.

Politically, the good news is that the electoral law was passed last year, allowing elections to go ahead in March, and holding the promise of a more established Arab democracy emerging. Unfortunately, some of the characteristics of functioning democracies, such as the impartiality and independence of electoral bodies, are yet to develop, if the actions of the rather Orwellian Accountability and Justice Commission are anything to go by.   

The Accountability and Justice Law (very good and detailed analysis here) appears to have done little other than to stir up the sectarian hornet's nest that is post-Saddam Iraqi politics. General Petraeus, head of US Central Command, highlighted the damage this body could do to sectarian reconciliation in an interview with The Times last week.

I can't believe it. Just a few weeks ago I was predicting the end of the fraught Arab-Persian diplomatic battle over the naming of the Gulf. The sleuthing Iraqi Foreign Minister seemed to have finally settled the issue with the discovery in some archive or other that it was actually called the Gulf of Basra. 

So much for predictions of an end to this nagging issue. While I was away last week the BBC reported a dramatic development in the dispute, with the cancellation of the Islamic Solidarity Games that were due to be held in Iran in April. As the BBC reported it:

The games federation in Saudi Arabia said the Iranian organisers had failed to address its concerns, particularly about the planned logo and medals.

These bear the words "Persian Gulf"....The Islamic Solidarity Sports Federation (ISSF) in Riyadh said, after an emergency board meeting, Iran's local organising committee "unilaterally took some decisions without asking the federation by writing some slogans on the medals and pamphlets of the games".  

The Interpreter will vigilantly follow this story and bring you any developments.

Photo by Flickr user Pete Ruscitti, used under a Creative Commons license.

My colleague Jenny Hayward-Jones and I have written previously about Iran's attempts to influence and reward the Solomon Islands for its UN votes. But Pacific micro-states' voting patterns are of equal if not greater interest to Israel.

This week the presidents, foreign ministers and ambassadors of the Federated States of Micronesia and Nauru are enjoying a week-long state visit to Israel. The Presidents of Palau and the Marshall Islands were unable to make the trip, unfortunately. All are noted supporters of Israel in the UN, even if the average Israeli is not sure why. Still, a vote's a vote. 

The Solomon Islands wasn't invited, likely because of the Government's decision to vote in the UN in favour of accepting the Goldstone Report, which was critical of Israeli actions during the conduct of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

Photo by Flickr user thejcgerm, used under a Creative Commons license.

The unsuccessful bombing plot against an American airliner at Christmas, a plot which had its origins in Yemen, did what my posts on The Interpreter and my Lowy paper (co-authored with a real Yemen expert, Sarah Phillips from Sydney Uni) could not do — focus the media's attention on Yemen. 

It also appears to have focused the mind of the Yemeni Government (which has multiple security issues to worry about), and it has had significant success against al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), if its own statements can be believed. The problem is that not many of them can be verified, let alone believed, so it's pretty difficult to judge fact from fiction.  

Yemeni Government sources claimed a 17 December air strike killed 34 militants in Abyan province, while locals claimed that many civilians were victims of the raid, and that alleged AQAP members conducted a rally at the site the next day. On 24 December another air raid reportedly claimed the lives of AQAP's emir, Nassir al-Wahayshi, along with the Yemeni/American cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi, though this has been challenged in other media reports.  

Six months ago Sam wrote a post about Qatar's decision to purchase two C-17 cargo aircraft and how they would provide a good national advertisement in times of humanitarian crisis. 

The Haiti earthquake has provided the Qatari Government with its first opportunity to dispatch aid in the very recognisable livery of a Qatar Airways C-17. 

In the world of diplomatic self-promotion, being small but rich means you don't have to be invisible. And with wealthy Gulf states seeing the provision of humanitarian aid as a way of projecting soft power, expect to see more photos of Gulf C-17s during future humanitarian crises.

Flight Global reports that an Iranian jetliner ran off the runway in Stockholm after a burst of flame came from the left-hand engine. Amateur video below:

Iranian commercial aviation is subject to international sanctions, making it very difficult to get parts for its Airbus and Boeing jetliners, and making it impossible for Iran to buy new ones. That's why there are so many old aircraft in the fleet (which apparently makes Iran's airports havens for Western plane spotters) and why Iran imports new passenger aircraft from Russia and the Ukraine.

The second geopolitical angle here (well, trivia, really) is that the aircraft involved in this incident is from the same airline (Iran Air) and of the same type (Airbus A300) as was shot down by the USS Vincennes in 1983.

On the broad topic of Iranian aviation, here's some stunning footage (from April 2008?) of an Iranian Air Force Su-24 strike aircraft coming in to land at Tehran's Mehrabad International Airport (which doubles as an air base). Clearly, not everything goes to plan, though you do see two chutes, suggesting the flight crew managed to eject. The best view of the incident is at the 2.30 mark:

Two events in the past few days – one positive, one negative – have the potential to act as circuit-breakers in the crisis over the welfare of Indian students in Australia.

The negative event was the suggestion by the extremist Shiv Sena Party that Australian cricketers should be banned from Mumbai. Why might this threat actually do some good? I have explored the reasons in more detail in this opinion piece, but the short answer is that most Indians – including many who have been worried about questions of race and safety in Australia – consider the Shiv Sena to be the last people they want on their side. 

This development is at least a reminder that every society has its share of bigots and that irresponsibly accusing entire nations of racism plays into their hands.  

The positive event, meanwhile, was the free public concert by Bollywood maestro A R Rahman in Sydney's Parramatta Park on Saturday night.

This will be remembered as a watershed moment for Indians in Australia. It was both the biggest gathering of the Indian community in this country's history – much of the crowd of tens of thousands comprised people of Indian or South Asian origin – and a dynamic expression of Australia's openness to multiple cultures.

I can attest to all of this because I was lucky enough to be there. The show was broadcast live across the Asia-Pacific by Australia Network and could go a long way in reducing misperceptions that Indians are not welcome in this country.

Part one here. 

Ahh, the Middle East peace process. I really do think I'm on firm ground here when I predict that the MEPP will look the same at the end of 2010 as it did at the start — going nowhere. The reasons are pretty well summed up in some exchanges from last year.
 
In May 2009 Secretary of State Clinton issued a very public demand to the Israeli Government that there must be no exceptions to President Obama's call for Israel to stop its settlement activity as a precondition for peace talks with the Palestinians: 'Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interest of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease.'
 
This hard-line approach was followed up very quickly when, in June 2009, President Obama said in his Cairo speech that 'Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.' read more

Sam's post yesterday on Israel's humiliation of the Turkish Ambassador reminded me how important diplomacy is in the Middle East. 

I knew Turkish Ambassador to Israel Oğuz Çelikkol well when I served at the Australian Embassy in Ankara a few years ago. He was then Turkey's Special Representative on Iraq and I frequently accompanied senior Australian Government visitors in discussions with him on the war in Iraq. He was one of the most intelligent and talented diplomats I ever met. He was also a very nice person. 

His knowledge of the Middle East region was exceptional, and like most senior Turkish diplomats, Çelikkol was a strong proponent of the Western alliance system and very well disposed to Israel.

Relations between Turkey and Israel have been souring for the last four years as Turkey's AKP Government has improved its relations with Arab countries, met with Hamas leaders and openly criticised Israeli actions in Gaza. Experienced diplomats, senior journalists and businesspeople in both countries, however, have worked hard to keep the relationship intact. 

That a diplomat as experienced as Çelikkol was appointed Ambassador to Israel shows how important the relationship is to Ankara. Israel badly needs friends in its neighbourhood, even if those friends retain the right to criticise Israel's actions. It also needs Turkey to act as a mediator in the region. Ambassador Çelikkol himself is a vital ally for Israel.

Risking an important strategic relationship with a diplomatic snub over something as petty as a Turkish television program was a stunt Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon could have avoided — with a private (rather than televised) expression of serious concern that would have been relayed faithfully to Ankara, probably with Çelikkol's recommendations for how Turkey could assuage Israel's concerns. 

Ayalon's apology shows calmer heads have prevailed just ahead of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Turkey. I wonder, though, how many more misadventures this important relationship will endure before its advocates on both sides lose the will to protect it.

Admiral Suresh Mehta (pictured, at a 2008 event at the Lowy Institute) has one of the wiser minds in the Indian strategic community. This speech last year was the most sensible and balanced piece of advice on Indian defence policy uttered publicly by a military officer. It has also been one of the most misunderstood. He did not argue that India should not try to protect itself from Chinese power. He argued, rather, that India should adopt a clever strategy of asymmetry – just as China has done against the US.

So why has this former Chief of Navy and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (in other words, India's head of the defence force) been sent as High Commissioner to New Zealand? Is he being sidelined, rewarded or both? Somehow I doubt it signals a New Delhi-Wellington strategic axis.

The 2009 winner of Graeme Dobell's Madeleine Award — for the best use of symbol, stunt, prop, gesture or jest in international affairs — has only just been announced, yet I think I can say with some confidence that we already have a winner for 2010.

At the very least, this entry will take some beating. I found this Christian Science Monitor story via Daniel Drezner's blog, and it describes a meeting between Turkey's ambassador to Israel and Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon. The Israelis were upset about criticisms of Israel made by the Turkish Prime Minister, and about how Israeli intelligence officers were depicted in a fictional Turkish TV show. They let it show:

Breaking with diplomatic protocol, Israeli officials failed to include the customary Turkish flag on the table between them and the Turkish ambassador, whom they seated on a low couch. To rub it in, they instructed the press members in attendance to note that they were sitting in higher chairs and the usual diplomatic niceties were conspicuously absent.

This is not a joke. Check out the photo the CS Monitor ran with the story.

If there is one thing I've learned from following, living in and writing about the Middle East as an Australian it is that, while many of my countrymen say they find the region fascinating, it is fair to say most Australians believe it to be of peripheral concern despite our substantial economic interests and the fact that we seem to continually send the ADF there.

So, to fit in with the average Australian's attention span for all things Middle Eastern, I'll try to write a series of short posts offering my views on what is likely to happen in certain countries in the region this year. I feel safe in offering such predictions because the opaque decision-making process of many of the actors, the number and nature of internal and external pressures facing states, and the regional rivalries and biases that often colour decision-making all mean that few if any outside observers get it right.    
 
Iran will continue to concentrate minds in the US in particular, but I can't see much policy headway being made and the situation at the end of the year will be little different from now. A sputtering domestic resistance movement may survive but will gradually lose momentum or split, but either way is not likely to threaten the regime's survival. I have said since the disputed elections last year that the election was not as pivotal as some people hoped or believed. The regime has a very tight grip on its security forces, and the opposition, while persistent, lacks a unifying vision or even a centralised leadership. This interesting post points to the challenges facing the Iranian protest movement. read more

Sam asked why a small country like the UAE needs the services of six (although other reports say four) C-17 strategic airlift aircraft. What could they possibly be used for?

In the absence of any strategic planning document such as a White Paper, besieged by international arms manufacturers seeking to recycle petrodollars back to their home economies, and always keen for the prestige of operating advanced military equipment, the equipment decisions made by Gulf military forces are not always made in a measured or logical manner.

That said, there is some justification for integral strategic lift. Since the 1990s the UAE has been quite active in deploying forces overseas. It has deployed a battalion to Somalia as part of the UN force in 1993, an armoured battle group (including Apache helicopters) to Kosovo from 1999, a military medical task force to Pakistan following the 2005 earthquake and a special forces group to Afghanistan.
 
In addition, UAE aid to regional neighbours has on occasion necessitated heavy lift. During the 2007 fighting at Nahr al-Barid refugee camp in Lebanon, the UAE donated nine Gazelle helicopters to the Lebanese Air Force that were pressed into service almost immediately on arrival. The UAE aso gifted ten Puma trooplift helicopters to Lebanon last year. 

Similar civilian or military aid missions are likely to be conducted in the future and, while the UAE is more than financially capable of contracting out such heavy lift requirements, the purchase of C-17s provides it with transport self-sufficiency and the regional status this brings.

Photo by Flickr user Ozone9999, Duke and Sarge, used under a Creative Commons license.

Australia's reputation in India — and worldwide — has suffered greatly in the past week. The storm of outrage in the Indian media over the safety of Indian students in Australia has gone global.

The catalyst for this furore has been the murder in Melbourne of a young Indian-born graduate. This was a brutal crime, but there is no proof yet of a racist motive. This has not stopped some Indian media organisations, driven by a mix of commercial sensationalism and heightened national pride, from leaping to conclusions and fanning fear in the Indian diaspora. The young man's cremation in India on Sunday provided another focus  for grief and anger, with the nationalist BJP trying to make political mileage.

And just when the Australian and Indian governments seemed to be making some progress in moderating the bad press — with the Indian Foreign Ministry urging its country's media to show some restraint – two more stories of grievous misadventure involving Indians in Australia seized the headlines.

My attention was drawn to an opinion piece in today's Australian that portrays the Middle East as locked in a modern-day Cold War pitting an expansionist, anti-Western Iran against a bloc of regional countries trying to valiantly resist the advances of the perfidious Persians.

I agree with elements of the piece — Iran is without doubt trying to expand its regional influence (which inevitably brings it into competition with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the erstwhile regional leaders), and it sees the development of a nuclear capability as the ultimate guarantor of the regime's security.

But much of the piece falls into the familiar trap of conflating Iranian intentions with capabilities, and of ignoring the motivations of various regional actors, particularly those in receipt of Iranian financial or security assistance.
 
The so-called pro-Iranian bloc is not much of a bloc, and neither does it show much of an inclination to replicate Iran's governance model. Lebanese Hizbullah is the only organisation that could legitimately be said to look to Tehran as a political model, but the demographic realities of Lebanon mean this will remain an aspirational goal for future generations (if the Iranian regime lasts that long). 

While those of you who have returned from the coast or overseas are counting the cost of your holiday, spare a thought for the poor citizens of the Gulf Arab states, some of whom are forced to get by on an average per capita GDP of a little over US$70,000.

The UAE's US$52,000 figure gives it the Arab world's second highest per capita GDP, but this figure doesn't tell the entire truth. The UAE's figure is skewed by the oil wealth of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, which had to give a lending hand to neighbouring Dubai not once but twice last year as the bottom fell out of the over-priced Dubai property market.

Which makes yesterday's opening of the world's tallest building in the emirate where the property market has crashed somewhat anomalous, although the re-naming of the tower from Burj Dubai to Burj Khalifa (after the president of the UAE and ruler of Abu Dhabi) is anything but anomalous.

 Photo by Flickr user saharsh, used under a Creative Commons license.

Major Gen (Retd) Jim Molan is author of Running the War in Iraq.

Paul Kelly has written in defence of Prime Minister Rudd and his Afghanistan policy, acknowledging that the Australian contribution to Afghanistan is token. Kelly considers that the hardline stance against more troops shows 'astute' management of the US alliance and is 'clever, serious and limited'. It may be none of these. Token contributions can be cynical, of questionable morality and may work against long term interests.

It is just as stupid for Australia to have a reputation as an unreliable, almost irrelevant military ally as it is for us to be seen as 'dumb but loyal and eager', as Owen Harries put it. But that's just what we are in danger of doing in Afghanistan. 

The 'contemporary Australian tradition', as Kelly calls it, has become the Australian way of war – of cynical, token military contributions.

Is it a sign of the improving situation in Iraq that the Iraqi Foreign Minister has found the time to do some serious historical research into the true name of the Gulf?

In what will likely be seen as a seminal contribution to historiography — and, no doubt, to regional peace building too — the Foreign Minister has finally put an end to the controversy surrounding the naming of that well-loved body of water, known variously as the (Arabian) Gulf and the Persian Gulf.

We have discussed Iranian sensitivities on this issue before, but it turns out all sides were wasting their time in pointless argument: the real name, the Iraqi Foreign Minister has discovered, is the Gulf of Basra.

Photo by Flickr user Alireza Teimoury, used under a Creative Commons license.

Major Gen (Retd) Jim Molan is author of Running the War in Iraq.

Sam Roggeveen and I appeared on ABC Local Radio's Nightlife on Monday night talking about Afghanistan. We each took our predictable positions on the subject but as the program progressed I kept thinking about why we are in Afghanistan and the changing nature of the conflict.

One of the regular criticisms of those who advocate continued involvement in Afghanistan is that even if we are successful, it will not make us safe from terror. That's a legitimate point because there are many other places from which terror attacks can be planned and mounted. Sam and I only had the chance to go 'once over lightly' on this issue.

But preventing terror attacks on the US or Australia is only one of the reasons to be in Afghanistan. Regardless of what the declared reasons are, the full range is something like: to lessen the pressure on Pakistan and lessen the chance of terror attacks emanating from that region; to maintain the alliance with the US; for humanitarian and moral reasons; and because we are there and it is harder to withdraw troops than it is to get involved in the first place.

Major Gen (Retd) Jim Molan is author of Running the War in Iraq.

Rodger Shanahan is right — our response to Obama's Afghanistan surge is low-risk and low-return. But that characterises our overall response to Afghanistan.

Our troops are still restricted in what they can do (though less so than in Iraq, and they are doing some good work). Their major restriction is that there are just not enough of them. As Rodger describes, our civilian component is restricted in its movement because we have not put in enough troops to establish a permissive environment, and is limited by its tiny size.

The ten policeman whose deployment was announced in April were still not all in Oruzgan Province many months later and it would be interesting to know if they are all there now (or have they opted for Kabul?). Peter Leahy points out that perhaps the AFP is not yet ready for Afghanistan, and implies that perhaps there is a need for more security before we deploy any police. Lots of things create security, but the first is normally troops (or gendarmerie or field force police, but not the AFP).

The electoral component of Australia's 'mini-mini surge' of April, a rifle company of 120 soldiers, only became operational a few days before the election and so would have contributed almost nothing to making the election successful. Elections need months of shaping before polling day so that polling day is an anti-climax. I'm not sure if the company has now returned home. That would be a shame at a time when our major coalition partner is begging its friends for troops. Could we not even keep 120 soldiers in place for this critical year?

The Australian has questioned the overall number of our troops in Oruzgan as being far less than the 1550 that has been officially touted. The Minister responded in a letter to the editor that did not address the issue but righteously defended the ADF, saying that they were not 'risk averse'. Of course, it is not the military that is risk adverse, but the Government.

I argued in a previous post that sending more civilian advisors to Afghanistan and then restricting them to bases achieves little more than the rearrangement of bureaucrats' locations.

Advisors who never get to interact with the locals outside the security of coalition bases are severely restricted in both the situational awareness that will inform good decision-making, and in their ability to manage projects. If advisors are not out among the population, it is fair to question the quality of advice they can provide to locals and to their superiors back home.
 
The Government's announcement that our contribution to the US-led 'surge' would be additional police trainers is likely to replicate this risk-averse approach. So I don't share Mark O'Neill's view that the announcement was 'sound policy'.

Prime Minister Rudd's announcement in Washington that Australia will 'surge' police and civil aid efforts in Afghanistan is sound policy.

Much of the recent focus on Afghanistan has understandably been on President Obama's announcement about strategy and troop numbers. But although sound strategy and sufficient troops are essential, they are rarely enough to secure success.

My recent Lowy Institute Paper, 'Confronting the Hydra: Big problems with small wars', described how important both a 'whole-of-government' approach and the establishment of appropriate police capability are to countering insurgency. Two of the paper's policy recommendations point towards the direction announced by the Prime Minister in Washington:

• Identification, training, education and deployment of a cadre from across relevant government departments to enable a true whole-of-government approach to counterinsurgency. Implicit in this recommendation is the requirement to prepare such a group for possible employment alongside ADF, Coalition and Afghan National Government organisations.

And:

• A greater role for the Australian Federal Police in counterinsurgency campaigns, beginning with the present campaign in Afghanistan.

Let's look briefly at both of these in turn.

Following up on my post from last week on Iranian aid to Solomon Islands and the difficulties Tehran had in sending cash to Honiara, I see the two governments have found a clever way around the legal obstacle. After the ANZ Bank refused to transfer funds from Iran to the Solomon Islands Government, the Iranian Embassy in Canberra simply handed the funds to the Solomon Islands High Commission in Canberra, which is now able to pay for the travel of 25 Solomon Islands medical students to Cuba. 

While this is a straightforward solution, the fact that Iran sought an alternative means to deliver its aid and followed through on its promise to Solomon Islands, a distant and unlikely friend, shows it is serious about winning as much support as possible in international forums.

Photo by Flickr user psd, used under a Creative Commons license.

Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has reported that Iran has been bribing countries to vote against Israel at the United Nations. The report alleges that an Iranian offer of $200,000 of financial assistance to Solomon Islands prior to the visit in October last year of Solomon Islands Foreign Minister William Haomae to Iran was made in exchange for Solomon Islands undertaking to vote against Israel at the UN.

Solomon Islands has traditionally abstained from voting in UN resolutions connected with Israel but has recently started to vote against Israel. Solomon Islands was the only country in the Pacific Islands region that voted in favor of adopting the Goldstone Report on Israel’s operation Case Lead in Gaza. This apparently so alarmed Israel that an Israeli Foreign Ministry representative was dispatched to Honiara to protest.

Apart from the engineering expertise promised last year to Solomon Islands, Iran also agreed to fund the travel costs of Solomon Islands medical students studying in Cuba. But this assistance has struck an obstacle. 

President Barack Obama is expected to make an announcement on a troop surge in Afghanistan on Tuesday, while the New York Times is reporting that allies are being hit up for an extra 10,000 soldiers. 

I asked the Lowy Institute's Andrew Shearer — who has been involved in managing Australian coalition troop contributions both at the Australian Embassy in Washington and in Canberra — about the announcements. You can listen to his response in the audio track below. 

Culinary delights aside, I am still trying to work out what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the United States means for the implementation of the US-India nuclear deal. My impression, so far, is that the Indians are neither thrilled nor dismayed with whatever understandings President Obama may have communicated.

But Singh will at least take heart that, bilaterally, Obama has retreated from one of the more unrealistic points in the UN Security Council Resolution he promoted in September, which had in effect reiterated a call for India to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: that is, to abandon its nuclear weapons unilaterally. Instead, this week’s Singh-Obama joint statement says:

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama reaffirmed their shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and pledged to work together, as leaders of responsible states with advanced nuclear technology, for global non-proliferation, and universal, non-discriminatory and complete nuclear disarmament. Part of that vision is working together to ensure that all nations live up to their international obligations. India reaffirmed its unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing.

The United States reaffirmed its testing moratorium and its commitment to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and bring it into force at an early date. Both leaders agreed to consult each other regularly and seek the early start of negotiations on a multilateral, non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty at the Conference on Disarmament …

read more

Newsweek reporter Maziar Bahari was detained in Iran's Evin prison for 118 days during which he was asked by an interrogator to explain his appearance in a Daily Show sketch (h/t The Lede).

As he remembers it:

I saw the flicker of a laptop monitor under my blindfold. Then I heard someone speaking. It was a recording of another prisoner's confession. "It's not that one," said the second interrogator. "It's the one marked 'Spy in coffee shop.' " Mr. Rosewater fumbled with the computer. The other man stepped in to change the DVD. And then I heard the voice of Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

The British Council has released a fairly depressing poll of Pakistan's youth. The New York Times summarises some of its findings below:

An overwhelming majority of young Pakistanis say their country is headed in the wrong direction, the report said, and only 1 in 10 has confidence in the government. Most see themselves as Muslim first and Pakistani second, and they are now entering a work force in which the lion’s share cannot find jobs, a potentially volatile situation if the government cannot address its concerns.

...The despair among the young generation is rooted in the condition of their lives, the report found. Only a fifth of those interviewed had permanent full-time jobs. Half said they did not have sufficient skills to enter the workplace. And one in four could not read or write, a legacy of the country’s abysmal public education system, in which less than 40 percent of children are enrolled in school, far below the South Asian average of 58 percent.

Another depressing, if predictable, finding from the report: 'Only around 10% have a great deal of confidence in national or local government, the courts, or the police. Only 39% voted in the last election; while half are not even on the voters' list.'

Photo by Flickr user takebackpakistan, used under a Creative Commons license.