ISRAEL, says Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon has opened the gates of hell and is tearing his country to shreds. Israel is destroying the entire infrastructure of the country — homes, factories, warehouses, bridges, roads, airports — in a cynical bid to sever links between its different parts and shatter the will of its people.

The physical damage is estimated to already exceed $2 billion. The death toll rises by the day and more than half a million people have been displaced. “Can the international community stand by,” he asks, “while such callous retribution by the state of Israel, is inflicted on us?”

This is just one of the several questions that must be asked forthwith. Israel is in flagrant breach of the fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting collective punishment; feeble references made here and there to its hugely disproportionate response to Hezbollah’s incursion across the border make a mockery of that Convention. The UN Human Rights Commission has warned that war crimes with individual culpability are being committed. The Human Rights Council should hold an emergency session now to take note of them.

Above all, there is the question of the Security Council’s delay in ordering a ceasefire that the prime minister of Lebanon desperately wants to stop the wanton destruction of his land which had only recently recovered from the ravages of the past conflicts. As the world leaders converged on St Petersburg for the G-8 summit, some of them certainly had this essential step on their mind. Stone-walled by President George W. Bush who was determined to give Israel the time needed to attain its military objective before any meaningful international peace initiative could be launched, their will simply wilted.

Clearly, this war goes far beyond reprisals for a single raid; it aims at reconfiguring the entire region and Israel is not acting alone. Only a few months back, the Lebanese leader was hailed by President Bush in Washington as the symbol of a new era of democratisation in the Middle East. He earned this praise partly to mark the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon but today his country is a hapless victim of a much larger strategic game involving many countries.

History alone will sift out the several questions about the nature and purpose of this war. But for the neo-conservatives of the United States, it has a stark simplicity. William Kristol, for instance, does not even recognise it as an Arab-Israel war. Writing in the Weekly Standard, he claims that “the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia are, to say the least, indifferent to the fate of Hamas and Hezbollah” and the PLO (Fatah) isn’t a player.

Consider his definition of it: “What’s happening is an Islamist-Israel war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West — but is India part of the West?” He is quite convinced that the prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war is a non-Arab state, Iran. The war against radical Islam, he writes, is likely to be a long one and this is why, in his judgment, the war in Lebanon is also America’s war. Kristol is just a trifle more blunt than others who collectively demand that the present conflict should be treated as an opportunity to strike against nuclear sites in Iran and bring about regime change there and in Syria.

Nothing was probably farther than this Islamophobia from his mind when the Saudi foreign minister criticised Hezbollah at the Arab League meeting for having acted without prior Arab consultations. The Arab states had not as yet evolved a common strategy even for Israel’s smaller war against Hamas. Israels sham withdrawal from Gaza was never followed up by any positive measures that would help the conversion of a non-state actor into a proper government capable of addressing severe social and economic problems left behind by a long occupation; in fact, all its efforts were focused on the destruction of Hamas’s power.

When Hezbollah jumped into the fray, two-third of the Hamas government was either in Israeli prisons or trying to escape target killings. Hezbollah’s objectives were not easy to understand. It might have simply hoped to set up another prisoners swap and underline the need for the return of the Sheba’a farms. Alternatively, it might have sought to relieve pressure on Hamas and on Iran. Whatever the intention, it acted when the Arab governments had no unity of thought or action to deal with another major crisis.

Ehud Olmert’s calculated risk in sending the military back to Gaza had improved his standing with the Israeli hawks who were unhappy that Hamas had almost survived the economic strangulation; they wanted to give it a mighty body blow. Hezbollah’s raid encouraged Olmert to proceed with his initiation rites to become the new warrior king of all the Jewish tribes including those manipulating the policy of the United States.

Assured of Washington’s support, he cast aside proportionality of response and embarked upon the total destruction of Lebanon as a means to neutralise the Hezbollah. For the Israeli military still chafing under its humiliating retreat from South Lebanon under Hezbollah’s relentless attacks, it was an opportunity to reassert its regional dominance. The remnants of Hezbollah would be pushed away from the border and Israel’s weakened deterrence against Hamas and Hezbollah would be re-established.

Hezbollah have fought Israeli ground troops with great courage and tenacity and used the main weapon in their arsenal, the Katyusha rockets, to hit targets deep inside Israel. It was probably a silkworm missile that crippled an Israeli warship enforcing a naval blockade of Lebanon. These strikes may have only little strategic value but they make a significant impact on the political situation. They restore Arab pride and help radicalise the Arab youth by demonstrating that radical movements alone stand up to Israel.

It is difficult to see how the kind of conflict that we are witnessing at the moment — a conflict between Israel and the Arab people rather than the states — would enhance Israel’s long term security or advance the larger agenda of the United States in a region already made highly volatile by the fiasco in Iraq.

Lebanon’s prime minister told the Financial Times that Syria and Iran were not “absent” from the scene. They could not be absent, as powerful lobbies in Israel and the United States consider them the real targets. In Iran’s case, it is difficult to give credence to the view that it engineered the Hezbollah raid. Surely, Iran would stand to gain if Hezbollah’s firepower had been kept in reserve for a situation in which Iran was directly attacked. After all, Hamas, Hezbollah and the pro-Iran militias in Iraq were essential components of Iranian deterrence against possible strikes against its nuclear installations by the United States or Israel. It is more likely that Israel is engaged in pre-emptive degradation of Hezbollah by forcing it to expend its assets prematurely.

Syria has sent clear signals of support for a ceasefire and Iran has done nothing to prevent it. It is entirely conceivable that both Damascus and Tehran may think that the legendary Hezbollah leader, Hasan Nasrallah, might, for once, have misread the international situation. The G-8 summit has revealed that the conflict has seriously revived the question of disarming the Hezbollah perhaps through the interjection of an international force tasked to secure the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution 1559 which demands the full extension of the sovereignty and writ of the Lebanese state right up to Lebanon’s southern frontier. This would certainly weaken Hezbollah’s role in regional politics.

For the moment, the cessation of hostilities should clearly be a universal objective. The usually reliable Guardian believes that Washington has given one more week to Israel to achieve its military objectives. Appalled by human suffering, Kofi Annan has finally thrown his weight behind an early ceasefire at the pain of being openly chided by the Israeli ambassador at the United Nations. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz has been visiting French President Jacques Chirac who should have no reason to see the conflict prolonged.

Most members of the Security Council would opt for a calmer environment to address long-term issues. Condoleezza Rice would, at long last, head for the region though her game plan is not clear at all. One may still hope that inherent limitations of the current military policy would be realised and the United Nations given a chance to enforce a mandatory peace under Chapter VII.

Writing this piece in an Arab capital on the 10th day of this savage war, one is all too conscious of the complexity of events. If there is anger against Israel and the United States, there are also misgivings about Iran. The Arab world is in disarray and is unable to formulate a joint strategy. There is no guarantee that the conflict will remain limited to Lebanon in the days ahead; a wider conflagration will have serious consequences for the region and the world beyond.

For the first time, price tags of well over $100 for a barrel of oil are being mentioned. It is also possible that when the dust and smoke of the present assault on Lebanon settles down, Israel still finds that it has failed to break the “Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis”. The conflict has many layers and I hope to discuss them further next week.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Email: tanvir.a.khan@gmail.com

MANY of the present conflicts in the world take place in the former colonial territories that Britain abandoned, exhausted and impoverished, in the years after the second world war. This disastrous imperial legacy is still highly visible, and it is one of the reasons why the British empire continues to provoke such harsh debate.

If Britain made such a success of its colonies, why are so many in an unholy mess half a century later, major sources of violence and unrest?

Top of the list is Palestine, a settler colony that Britain abandoned in 1947 after barely 30 years, having imposed a population of mostly European settlers on the indigenous people — one of the typical characteristics of imperial rule. Unfortunately for the settlers, arriving during the imperial sunset, they had insufficient time to achieve the scale of defeat of local people, amounting to extermination and genocide, that characterised the British conquest and settlement of Australia.

While the demoralised native peoples of Australia survive in shanty towns or reservations, those in Palestine have had some capacity to struggle against such a fate, organising a lasting resistance to the settlers, inspired by their own ancient religion and sustained by the support of a vast Arab hinterland. The Australian settlers suffer from little more than a guilty conscience — if that — while the Israelis face a permanent and ineradicable threat. Like the mediaeval crusaders, whose ruined castles dominate the landscape of the eastern Mediterranean, they will be lucky if their state lasts more than a century. Many will surely abandon ship in despair.

A similar imperial trouble spot is Sierra Leone, another settler colony where the British imposed an alien, largely Christian, black population from Britain and Canada on to a congeries of native peoples already in thrall to Islam. The original colony dates back to the 18th century, but much of the country was secured through military conquest at the end of the 19th, to which there was energetic resistance. The recurrence of civil war, though suffocated recently by a return of British troops, remains a permanent probability.

Other victims of settler colonialism where unresolved problems survive from the time of empire include South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya, and of course the tragic statelet of Northern Ireland. In these countries the settlers are all now on the back foot, outnumbered and outmanoeuvred, yet the baneful legacy of the colonial regime — in social customs, and in the forms of government designed to protect settler society — lives on. Much unfinished business remains.

Settler colonies of a marginally different kind were established in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and Fiji, the victims of continuing trouble. In both islands workers from India were imported in the 19th century for the white-owned plantations, creating the basis for an endless civil war that can never be resolved. Here, as elsewhere, endemic violence and conflict have proved to be the lasting legacy of empire.

In India itself Britain’s speedy and disastrous scuttle in 1947 led to partition and the creation of the “moth-eaten” Muslim state of Pakistan (and eventually of Bangladesh), making nonsense of two centuries of British dominion designed to maintain the unity of the subcontinent. Abandoning India without a clear and agreed decision on the future of the princely state of Kashmir has created a scenario of disaster that has lasted from that day to this.

One troubled imperial outpost, often forgotten and now brought to life as a temporary haven for refugees from Lebanon, is Cyprus, miserably divided like India as a result of imperial misrule, and still under British military surveillance today from two “sovereign” bases.

Others are Nigeria and Somalia, the first unnaturally cobbled together in a unitary state for imperial convenience, the second occupied and abandoned for purely strategic reasons. Both are currently simmering on the stove.

Finally come Iraq and Afghanistan, two modern disasters that have their roots in the experience of empire. Iraq was last in and first out of the British empire, though British military bases were not finally removed until the 1950s. Fifty years later the British are back, British soldiers replacing the Indian sepoys who invaded the country on Britain’s behalf during the first world war. The British left in a hurry in the 1930s, and they will doubtless do so again.

Although nominally independent, Afghanistan was effectively within the imperial sphere for most of the 19th century, though successfully fighting three wars of resistance against the British. The fourth Anglo-Afghan war is now in progress, to be followed as before by an Afghan triumph.

It seems that the story of the empire is being re-enacted over much of the globe, bringing violence and destruction on a scale barely envisaged in the imperial era. How fortunate we would be to have a government in Britain that would help to bind up the wounds of the past, by at least recognising what really happened, rather than to have one that endlessly pours petrol on the flames.—Dawn/Guardian Service

IT’S difficult to find words to adequately describe modern day Dubai, especially if one lived and worked in the place many years ago, when the desert sheikhdom was just beginning to be noticed and was trying to find its place in the sun.

Perhaps one could start by calling it a modern city with all the amenities of the West and the heat of the East; or a bustling, ever-expanding metropolis, throbbing with the pulse of progress; or the emerging new financial capital of the Middle East.

Dubai is a bit of all of these and a great deal more. During the five days this writer recently spent in the city, he found it a little overpowering and overwhelming. The place was totally unrecognisable.

Which visitor or expatriate would have ever thought that smack in the centre of the city with temperatures crossing the 41 degree Celsius mark, one would be able to find a slice of the Swiss Alps — complete with snow, ski slope, icy winds, cable cars, skiers draped in woollen jerseys, caps and boots and instructors who look as if they have just gotten off the plane from Interlaken?

Well, as Sir Edmund Hillary would have put it, it was there, alongside a fully air conditioned mall which is supposed to be the largest outside the United States, with its clutch of fancy restaurants and bewildering display of shops vying for attention

Who would have thought that somebody would build a jaw-dropping, luxurious seven-star hotel which charges over seven thousand dollars a night for a room and where the Sultan of Brunei maintains a permanent suite? Or that there would be a street, named after the late Shaikh Zayed, which has apparently found a place in the Guinness Book of Records for being the busiest thoroughfare in the world?

The view from the Fairmont Hotel, where this writer was enjoying a T-bone steak with his nephew, niece and sister-in-law, focused on the two-way traffic, moving at a brisk, disciplined pace, and studded every now and then with the latest and most expensive sedan, sports car and coupi from the assembly lines of Japan, Germany, Italy, Britain and the United States.

The flow just never seemed to stop, and one learnt that the endless parade went on for 24 hours a day! During the meal he came to know that plans had been laid for the construction of a metro-rail to ease some of the traffic congestion.

What a contrast to Karachi where the solution to the problem of traffic jams is to throw more and more cars onto the road and to construct more and more flyovers.

And then one saw the gleaming skyscrapers - tall, towering, majestic structures in glass and concrete etching the skyline, the conference centres where conventions are held throughout the year, the department stores, boasting a gallimaufry of purchases, the eating places, the cinemas, the opulent residences, the rebuilt or refurbished hotels, the beautifully manicured lawns and flowerbeds and the imposing office buildings.

When one has absorbed all that fascinating variety, there are the great sporting facilities, five championship quality golf courses, water sports, the world’s most technologically advanced water park themed around the legends of Sinbad, located next door to a famous beach hotel which offers thrilling slides, as well as restaurants and pools to relax in.

Close to the airport is the Wonderland theme park, which has several roller coasters. In spite of all that construction and remodelling, with scaffolding throwing out branches of leafed steel, one never saw those huge heaps of sand and ditches of dirty water which are a common sight at construction sights in Karachi.

With its unrivalled beaches and the breathtaking scenery of the Arabian desert, its eternal sunshine, its exotic, vibrant nightlife and enviable reputation for being a safe place, Dubai is fast turning into the premier tourist destination of the Middle East. Of course, it wasn’t always like this.

The credit for this spectacular transformation goes to the Al Makhtoum family, particularly Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, who has achieved some of his most striking effects by adroit shifting of perspective, and whose government is keen to exploit every natural advantage that the country can offer so he can develop the emirate into a world leader in every field that it enters, whether its education, medical facilities or information technology.

It is not at all surprising that Shaikh Mohammed is so popular, not just among the expatriates, who benefit from the opportunities offered by a welfare state, but also with the local Arabs.

Members of the younger generation fondly remember that auspicious day in February 2005, when as Crown Prince of Dubai and UAE minister of defence, he ordered the construction of 10,000 housing units for young nationals at a cost of 10 billion dirhams!

A newspaper reporter described this gesture as “a supreme example of a rich administrator putting the wealth of the state to judicious use.”

Due to the brevity of his current visit this writer wasn’t able to see some of the locations he used to visit when he worked and resided in Dubai in the 1980s as chief executive of an English language newspaper. Places like the Jebel Ali Hotel with its carefully manicured terraced gardens, and Khorfakhan, the pride of Sharjah, which from the air looks like a strip of the French Riviera.

Here the sea, which spreads its white lace on the shore, is the same colour of blue found in Raoul Dufy’s paintings; and Hatta, a windy, hilly resort with a Nevada-style hotel which one reached by crossing a few miles of Omani territory. And last, but not least, there were the Abras, the motor boats which ferried passengers for a quarter of a dirham, as they chugged across the shimmering waters of the creek to the souks of Bur Dubai. These water taxis are still operating

One also cannot forget the Astoria Hotel, a watering hole for expatriates from the subcontinent, frequented by Indian movie stars, and the Sind-Punjab Restaurant which, curiously enough, was owned by a Sikh from India.

One day the owner of this restaurant achieved a measure of notoriety. India Gandhi, who had allowed troops into the Golden Temple, in search of a cache of arms allegedly hidden by militant Sikhs, had been assassinated.

The owner of the restaurant decided to distribute sweets to whoever he came across. The local Arabs didn’t see it quite the same way and gave the fellow a sound thrashing.

It was in Dubai, in the good old days, that one was able to compare the lifestyles of people from different countries who knew that the good times would not last for ever and that one day they would have to return to their homeland. Some indulged in raw thrusting consumerism and conspicuous consumption. Others kept a low profile and saved.

We had a small circle of bridge players which met every Friday and rotated as to location. One week it was the turn of the manager of Chartered Bank, a Sikh gentleman from the old school.

He introduced us to his house guest, an innocuous looking bespectacled man from Delhi, 10 years my senior, dressed in a grey safari suit and sandals. He politely asked what stakes we were playing, and when told it was ten dirhams a point, found them too high. India, he said, is a poor country and asked if we could fix the stakes at a dirham a point.

When we broke up for tea we exchanged visiting cards. His bit of pasteboard stated that he was the chairman of four companies which were listed under his name. As one usually does on such occasions, this writer slipped the visiting card into his pocket and forgot all about it.

Later when we broke up for dinner, one of the guests, a Pakistani banker who worked for Citibank happened to ask the host who the house guest was. “Well, the chap is now retired and his sons are looking after his business. So far as telling you who he is, let me put it this way.

If you put together all the wealth of your Dawoods, Adamjees, Crescent Group, Sapphire Group, Arag Group, Bawanys, Habibs and Saigols, it wouldn’t fit into ten per cent of his assets.” To this day one wonders if our host was trying to tell us something.