By Ibrahim Abdul’Aziz

Bulama Buba Kadai once owned 20 farms and more than 100 head of cattle near Gwoza in northeastern Nigeria. A year ago, when Boko Haram attacked his village, Kadai’s land and all but two cows were destroyed. He also lost his two sons – the sole heirs of any property he may one day leave behind. “I think most of us are going back to our graves,” Kadai told IRIN.

Ongoing attacks have destroyed land and killed thousands of young men since 2009, and, in some cases, wiped out or displaced entire generations of farmers and herders. The future of many rural communities in northeastern Nigeria is, at best, uncertain, at worst, unsustainable.

Kadai, and some 500 other farmers from his former community have taken refuge in Malkohi, on the outskirts of Yola, the capital city and administrative capital of Adamawa State. Some of them were temporarily allotted a small piece of land by the local government earlier this year, but yields were poor.

He, and many of the others, say they dream of going back to Gwoza, but fear there is also no future there.

“In the rural north, the youth are the pillars of agriculture, tending to farms and cattle,” said Yakubu Musa, a farmer from Askira. “Now, six years of Boko Haram violence has left farms idle and animals dead or stolen.”

Like Kadai, Musa lost everything, including his sons, during a Boko Haram raid last year.

Living in fear

Ahmadu Buba, who escaped a Boko Haram attack earlier this year along with his family, now farms some 20 kilometres away on the outskirts of the border town of Mubi. Though he was “lucky enough” to survive, he saw many of his neighbours slaughtered, and fears a similar fate for himself.

“I was on my way to work on the farm with my four children when I caught sight of five men,” he told IRIN. “Their faces were covered with turbans and they were carrying AK-47 rifles. They killed some of our most prominent farmers.”

Buba said many farmers who stayed restrict their movements to “safe areas” and work limited hours in the fields to minimise the risk. He worries about the impact this would have on food supplies and feared the timing of previous attacks could mean food shortages this year.

Bulama Modu, a rice farmer from Gwoza who has since taken refuge at a camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Malkohi, told IRIN: “Boko Haram has prevented farmers from tilling their fields. They have been attacking us and many farmers were killed, mostly youth. We had to run without tilling our rice.”

At first, the militants imposed levies and taxes on the farmers in exchange for not burning their crops, he said. In one village in the Chwawa area of Madagali, a community leader, who wished to remain anonymous, said these “fines” ranged from between one and three million naira ($6,000–$18,000), depending on the size of the village.

“But later, they started slaughtering people and this situation forced us all to flee,” Modu said.

His village has since been recaptured by soldiers, and while he hopes to farm again one day, he is still too scared to start replanting.

Impact on food security

More than 17,000 farmers have fled from northeastern Nigeria to the south since 2012, according to Nigeria’s National Emergency Management Agency.

The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) says food production throughout the region will be below average this year, and that areas of western Yobe State, northern Adamawa State and most of Borno State, along with areas in and around Maiduguri, where many IDPs have taken refuge, are expected to remain “in crisis” until at least March 2016.

Food prices have also been affected.

Inusa Daudu, who sells onions at the Mile 12 Market in Lagos, said that since Boko Haram began attacking farmers the prices of beans and onions have risen by up to 70 percent.

“Most of our traders are now afraid to go to the food markets up north,” Daudu told IRIN. “Transporters see it as [a] high risk going to such places as Maiduguri to carry farm produce.”

He cited the example of an attack on the popular Baga fish market in Borno State, which was attacked one morning by Boko Haram gunmen.

“Many food stores are locked and whatever is inside is perishing,” Daudu said. “It is not only the farmers that are running away, [but] the food sellers and transporters too.”

Landmine risk

Many farmers who have tried to return home are still unable to replant their fields due to landmines.

They are forced to seek other employment until their land has been cleared.

Others aren’t so lucky.

Yandum Kwageh spent almost a year in an IDP camp after Boko Haram tore her from the land she called home in Michika. A long-time farmer, she said the only thing that helped her survive the hardships of camp life was the dream of returning to her farm.

But in April, when troops finally recaptured her village and she was allowed back, she returned to find destroyed, fallow fields, which, unbeknownst to her, were riddled with landmines. After weeks of digging out weeds and replanting corn, she stepped on a mine left behind by Boko Haram while tending her crops.

Kwageh came to in a hospital bed. Now, unable to farm and grow food for her family, she hopes to be able to take out a small loan to start a business.

The Commander of the 28 Taskforce Brigade headquarters in Mubi, General V.O. Ezeugwu, told IRIN that there have been “many” similar explosions in farm fields in recent months as refugees and IDPs return to their land in greater numbers.

The government says Nigerian troops are working to clear landmines from recaptured areas, but that the work is “both dangerous and very time-consuming.”

“The troops focus mostly on schools, [health] clinics and roads,” Muhammad Bindow Jibrilla, a governor in Adamawa State, told IRIN. “Farms are not considered a high priority.”

Back in Malkohi, Kadai has given up hope that his farming community near Gwoza will be able to get back on its feet. “What is the use when the youth are all gone?” he asked IRIN. “How can we cope when all we had is gone?”

Dear Pope Francis,

We are MISNA’s dedicated journalists, a small missionary agency that for over twenty years has reported about the “outskirts” of your beloved Africa, Asia and Latin America. Just a few days after Christmas, on December 31, this “voice of the voiceless” is at risk of being silenced.

In a decision that we see as both tragic and unexplainable, and symbolically like slamming that same Holy Door you opened in the Central African Republic’s capital Bangui, the Missionary Congregations, who own MISNA (Comboni Missionaries, Consolata Missionaries, Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions and Xaverian Missionaries), are choosing to suspend publication.

These are the same Missionary Congregations, spurred by a dynamic Comboni missionary, Fr. Giulio Albanese, who created this little but noteworthy missionary media source in 1997. “If every missionary in every corner of the world – from Congo to the “ends of the earth” – has a satellite phone, we will have a truly unique, independent and inspired report”: this was the idea behind the birth and foundation of MISNA, and that today, we still believe, is as relevant as ever. This is what motivates us with heart and commitment to try and change the approach to news.

Nevertheless, the Missionary Congregations, owning MISNA, now say that they are so “tired”, weighed down by costs and “at the end of their energies” to the point of feeling that the survival of their own creation is useless. This would be a terrible mistake: without MISNA, a heavy price will be paid by the young Churches, the suburbs and the civil societies calling for social justice, which is a precondition of peace. While the idolization of money silences the voice of the poor.

We begged in every possible way for our owners to sit at a table with us to find a solution. We offered to continue our work, cutting our salaries, to do everything – as laypeople, working alongside the missionaries – imaginable to keep MISNA alive. But our voices were also not heard.

Dear Francis, Hear our call.

Walt Disney is paying a lot of money to get Harrison Ford to return to a galaxy far, far away.

That’s the takeaway from a Guardian piece that claims Ford could make up to $34 million for reprising his role as Han Solo in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The salary includes a $25 million upfront with a slim share of the film’s gross earnings.

Notably, Ford is getting paid 56 times the $450,000 flat fee received by British newcomers John Boyega and Daisy Ridley—who each play new leading characters in the film. His salary is also far above the $1.5 million reportedly paid to Carrie Fisher to return to the franchise. “Harrison is the key to making this movie work,” a Disney source told the Daily Mail.

The pay disparity between Ford and Fisher could raise questions about the gender gap in Hollywood. While both Han Solo and Fisher’s Princess Leia are beloved by the property’s fans, Solo is arguably a more iconic character. Solo ranks high on many “Greatest Male Movie Character” lists—as does Indiana Jones, another character portrayed by Ford.

The high payday may have paid off for Disney, the new Star Wars film brought in $238 million in North America, the biggest box office opening weekend in history, and globally generated revenue of $517 million.

By N Sathiya Moorthy*

Brushing aside the domestic political opposition and international pressure, Maldives President Abdulla Yameen seems to have put development ahead of democracy in the long run-up to his bid for re-election in 2018. In doing so, he seems to be replicating what could be dubbed as the ‘China model’ of domestic political administration since the days after Deng Xiaoping.

No one is talking any more about the Yameen’s re-election campaign, launched by First Lady Fathimath Ibrahim and his camp followers, a few months ago. Half-brother and former President Maumoon Gayoom, founder and head of Yameen’s ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) also stayed away. The PPM-led coalition controls the 85-member Parliament, and there is an unproved belief that the Yameen camp has a majority within the PPM and the alliance.

Instead, the Yameen leadership is going ahead with what seems to be a well-calibrated and well-oiled forward movement on the economic and development fronts. Fancying himself as a trade, commerce and economy man, Yameen’s current efforts, if they succeed, could shift the national focus and agenda from democracy back to development – as what the case was under the 30 long years of Gayoom’s rule.

Yameen has time till October-November 2018 elections for the same. The success or failure of the same, over the medium and long terms, would depend on his election victory/defeat at the time. The question remains if the incumbent Government or the ‘pro-democracy’ competitor in the Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) of jailed former President Mohammed Nasheed could not (have had) both.

In its short-lived term, the Nasheed presidency focussed near-exclusively on democratisation (of the MDP kind). Under the circumstances of the time, it could not have been otherwise. But excessive economic reforms, based on the IMF model of market capitalism, meant that jobs were lost, salaries were cut and tariffs shot up. If the Nasheed presidency had medium and long-term plans to facilitate meaningful and self-sustaining growth, they were launched a little too early. Moreover, they were not retained long enough to make things work.

Against this development, the use democracy by the Yameen camp can potentially be seen as an attempt at silencing political competition, using that very democratic syntax which the MDP rival had sworn by. Independent of what the MDP and the international community might say, there is political justification and judicial approval (until the Supreme Court, if at all, orders otherwise), both on the domestic front, for Nasheed’s 13-year jail-term.

An ardent believer of market capitalism himself, Yameen has been more imaginative in choosing his economic tools than Nasheed. Nasheed chose fiscal measures for visible reforms even while toying with the idea of opening up in a big way. That made the government relatively unpopular, particularly among the youth. They latter had stood by democratisation and Nasheed wholesale, hoping that the change would usher in personal prosperity.

Creating jobs

Either learning from Nasheed’s folly on the economic front or otherwise, the Yameen presidency has reversed the priorities between fiscal and investment reforms. It is unclear if the leadership has any specific reforms agenda for the fiscal front. But on opening-up, the Government has been working purposefully on facilitating faster overseas investment, with the hope and promise of creating more jobs and increasing family incomes even while improving the revenues for the exchequer.

Recently, a minister in the Yameen Government claimed that they have created 60,000 new jobs since coming to office in November 2013. That means every fifth or sixth person in Maldives (including children and the old) have got a job. It’s a tall order, but even a fraction of the claim, if true, could make the difference underMaldivian conditions. More importantly, such a course could inject a cascading effect on the economy on the one hand and on the public mood on the other.

Yameen has gone on-record to say that the nation cannot any longer rely near-exclusively on resort tourism as its economic mainstay. The sector has taken many a hit over the past decade – both natural (tsunami) and man-made (global economic melt-down). For long the sword of democracy has been hanging over the nation’s head, with threats, fears and anticipation of the high-spending western tourists staying away, either because of moral convictions, or government advisories, or both.

Imaginative bridge

The Yameen leadership began with an SEZ programme. It is yet to take off in a big way. Its success could mean the success of Yameen leadership at a personal-level, and politics at the policy-level. The failure of the SEZ scheme, particularly in terms of creating jobs and for the locals, could also hit Yameen personally, in political and electoral terms. He may not be unaware of it, either.

Simultaneously, Yameen is also looking at imaginative development schemes that could serve a public purpose. The China-funded Male-Hulhulumale sea-bridge, connecting the nation’s capital to the fast-developing island-suburb or ‘satellite city’, could ease the pressure on land and costs even more than already. At present, the two islands are connected through boats, still the most popular mode of transport in the Indian Ocean archipelago. The prestigious project, with which Maldivians in every corner of the country could proudly identify with, is set to be completed by 2017, a year ahead of the next presidential polls.

Yameen’s development policies are also aimed at capturing the youth, more. As if to confer greater responsibility and respectability on local youth – and valuing their national pride and personal integrity, so to say – the Government has barred foreign nationals from being appointed as treasurers in Maldivian establishments. More recently, the Government has announced a scheme, to be implemented in 2016, for pregnant women to work out of their homes. Whether the scheme would cover only government jobs or also include private enterprises is unclear just now.

Replicating Rajapaksa

In the neighbourhood context, it would look as if Yameen is replicating, or has borrowed from the politico-electoral model of former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. There is no LTTE in Maldives for Yameen to vanquish, and become a ‘national hero’. At the same time, there is also no parallel to the decisive Tamil-Muslim vote-banks in Maldives, which alone did Rajapaksa in, at this January’s presidential polls that he had advanced. Majority Sinhala community voted substantially in favour of Rajapaksa, who polled 47 per cent votes.

Despite claims to the contrary, democracy was not an election issue per se, in Sri Lanka. It had its effect only as a political process, facilitating and guaranteeing periodic elections. In Maldives, it was an issue as the final results of the 2008 presidential polls proved. It was an anti-Gayoom election. Despite all the heat and dust it created in 2013, the 2013 presidential poll was an issue-less election, where the MDP could not make it as much Yameen-centric as it could make it Nasheed-centric.

In politico-electoral context, even in the best of times, as in the first round of the 2013 presidential polls, Nasheed as the single most popular candidate could muster only 47 per cent vote-share, or less than the required 50 per cent. Whether desired or designed that way, Yameen’s politico-administrative strategy, to become successful has to take the presidential poll process away from being Nasheed-centric, as has been since 2008. Whether he could succeed in it, where Gayoom had failed in his time is a different question.

An emerging alternative?

In Sri Lanka, President Rajapaksa had started off on his development agenda even when the decisive ‘Eelam War IV’ was on. Post-war, he even hoped that it would work with the Tamils, as well. It did not happen that way. In Maldives, President Yameen too is facing international pressure over ‘democracy’ and human rights, personified once again in Nasheed. Nearer home he lays greater stress on development and job-creation.

Though there is nothing to suggest a common script, the development-democracy political paradigm in Sri Lanka first, and Maldives now, there are elements that are even more common to China. It goes beyond China’s funding of development projects in these two countries under friendlier regimes. There are other nations falling under a similar pattern, across the world – most of them in the ‘Third World’ category, as well.

On the one hand, China alone has surplus cash to invest. It does not deflect from a nation’s developmental discourse to introduce democratic elements – or, so goes the argument. It also goes without saying that regimes like those of Rajapaksa and Yameen could also count only on China for funding and ultimate political backing in UN Security Council (with its veto power).

Having adapted market capitalism to boost its economic domination the world over, China has also adapted western democracy to suit its own conditions. Unacknowledged by the world, China has evolved a scheme that grants post-Deng national leaders only two terms in office. The nation may have borrowed from the American adversary’s constitutionally-mandated two-term upper-limit.

It may have also learnt it hard from Third World democracies and the rest, where familiarity in this era of uncontrollable social media has bred anti-incumbency. In Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa removed the two-term upper-limit in vogue since the Seventies and lost. Maldives, too, has a two-term upper-limit for the presidency, and this is Yameen’s first term.

Going beyond these two Indian Ocean neighbours, which are also close to India, the world’s largest democracy, China’s development versus democracy model may have application elsewhere too, in the coming years and decades.

It is also a take-off from the Soviet model which failed itself and elsewhere, too, but China seems to have re-tuned it to the contemporary era of uncontrollable social media activism, post-Tianamen. To the extent, nations like Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka and Yameen’s Maldives are experiments in an experience, like the Jayawardene Sri Lanka and Gayoom’s Maldives were in their time.

*N Sathiya Moorthy is the Director of the Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at: sathiyam54@gmail.com

The Russian Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday information about easing visa requirements for the Georgian citizens starting from December 23.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also said that as a next step it does “not rule out” possibility of lifting visa requirements for Georgia.

“In the context of ongoing process of normalization of Russian-Georgian relations and in the view of stimulating positive trends between our countries, starting from December 23, 2015 business, work, study and humanitarian visas of any multiplicity, as well as private visas regardless of whether there is kinship or not between host and invited person… will be issued to the citizens of Georgia,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“The Russian side is determined to take further steps directed towards easing conditions for communication between the citizens of the two countries and is not ruling out to subsequently introduce visa-free regime on the basis of reciprocity,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Georgia already has visa-free rules for the Russian citizens.

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s announcement came five days after Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said during his annual press conference that Moscow is “ready to cancel visa regime” for the Georgian citizens. The remarks were welcomed by Georgian PM Irakli Garibashvili as “a step in the right direction.”

Also on December 22, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin spoke by phone with Georgian PM’s special representative for relations with Russia Zurab Abashidze and “clarified measures for liberalisation of the visa regime for Georgians”, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Abashidze, who is Georgia’s negotiator with Russia in frames of direct bilateral dialogue with Moscow launched in late 2012, welcomed Moscow’s announcement and said that it implies a “significant simplification of visa rules” compared to those applied by Russia currently.

He said that his next meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Karasin is planned for February and one of the issues discussed will be “this next step” of possible lifting of visa requirements.

“We will see how this simplified visa regime works and then we will review how to proceed further,” Abashidze told the Georgian public broadcaster on Tuesday evening.

Abashidze declined to respond a question if he thought that this move by Russia was made in response to the European Commission’s decision to pave the way for visa-free travel rules for the Georgian citizens in the Schengen area – a widespread notion among many Georgian political commentators.

“Let the experts speak about it,” Abashidze responded when asked this question.

Issue of easing, but not lifting, visa requirements for the Georgian citizens has been regularly raised in talks between Abashidze and Karasin. Judging from Karasin’s previous remarks, Moscow’s position on the issue, at least before Putin’s remarks, had been that lifting of visa requirements was not likely until restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which were cut after the August, 2008 war.

By Gorazd Velkovski

U.S. Elections are indeed a beautiful thing.

The way American elections work is, well, pretty special. There are only two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The US elite assisted by their corporate controlled media will hand pick two same different candidates and will let the Americans choose one of their candidates.

In essence, it doesn’t matter who gets elected or which political party wins since both candidates (Republicans and Democrats) are completely controlled by corporate interests, or what the Americans call, the 1%.

It works out perfectly because the entire process looks somewhat democratic, even though it isn’t.

What is interesting is that their so called mainstream media would not let another party candidate (ex: Green Party) or anyone else for that matter be involved in debates or be given any TV time. Americans can’t know anyone else exists, you either go Democrat, or Republican.

The system is perfectly designed. The 1% will pick their two guys, and will let the lesser people (the 99%) vote for one of them. The 99% vote for their guy anyways, but at least they get to vote, right?!

I must admit, this is pretty clever, astonishingly undemocratic indeed, but very clever.

The system worked great until the Donald showed up.

I can’t say I’ve great interest in American elections, but I had to watch their debates because of the Donald. Just in passing I’ll admit that never saw any of the Democrat debates because Hillary is their “man”, regardless of what the party or Americans think, this has already been decided by U.S. Inc.

Back to the Donald.

It is utterly hilarious to watch US Media trying to follow orders and bring down the Donald. Yet, somehow, after each interview or debate Tump comes out on top! Time and time again US presstitutes would attempt what is popularly known as “character assassination”, by asking Trump “Why are you racist” even though he isn’t, or “Why do you hate women so much”, and somehow nothing has worked to bring him down. By the way, Trump responded he apparently hated only hated Rosie O’Donnell, but he loves women. His responses are always geniune, sometimes plain funny.

What makes it even stranger is that his own Republican party that he sort of belongs to (if you’re not Democrat or Republican you cannot run) has worked behind the scenes to stab him in the back, but again, nothing has worked.

So there is a big issue here. On one side you have the U.S. elite and their media who will not let someone they have no control over in the White House. They need a puppet, and Trump doesn’t appear to be one. On the other side you have the Americans who seems to be enjoying everything about Trump.

I would always place my bet on the American citizens, however knowing that electronic voting machines were introduced in about a dozen U.S. states with election fraud being their primary objective, things will certainly be quite interesting.

“Now let’s make two things clear,” said US President Barack Obama, in an address to the nation on September 10, 2014, “ISIL is not ‘Islamic’ …and ISIL is certainly not a state.”

Depending on how one defines “Islamic” and “state” he may be right, but what is certain is that Islamic State (IS) – or “Daesh” as many now prefer to dub it – aspires to be both.

As for the Islamic element, the organization’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, claims to be “the caliph and leader for Muslims everywhere”. The caliph is historically supposed to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe in Arabia. Since becoming leader, Baghdadi has been claiming precisely that lineage – a claim widely disputed. His definition of “Muslim” is also open to question – he defines any person who does not subscribe to his own extreme version of Sunni Islam as an infidel, and as such worthy of an ignominious death – but all the beheadings, crucifixions, amputations, mass killings and terror attacks that have characterised the rise of IS, unjustified though they undoubtedly are, have been carried out in the name of Islam.

The caliphate that he professes to be recreating harks back to the idea of an Islamic republic led by one leader, regardless of national boundaries. The caliphate concept persisted within the Ottoman empire until 1924, when Kemal Ataturk abolished it, but Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state that, at various times during the course of Islam’s 1,400-year history, ruled over the Middle East, much of North Africa and large parts of Europe.

As regards IS’s intention to do just that, it was as recent as December 7 that the UK’s Guardian newspaper revealed the contents of a leaked internal IS manual showing how the terrorist group had been setting about building a state in Iraq and Syria complete with government departments, a treasury and an economic programme for self-sufficiency.

The 24-page document, entitled “Principles in the administration of the Islamic State”, sets out a blueprint for establishing foreign relations, a fully-fledged propaganda operation, and centralised control over oil, gas and the other vital parts of the economy. It builds up a picture of a group, according to the Guardian that, “although sworn to a founding principle of brutal violence, is equally set on more mundane matters such as health, education, commerce, communications and jobs. In short, it is building a state.”

Charlie Winter, a senior researcher for Georgia State University, believes that “IS is a deeply calculating political organisation with an extremely complex, well-planned infrastructure behind it.”

How have IS’s fortunes fluctuated in the past year or so?

There have been four major areas of territorial change: IS losses near Baghdad, in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, and along the Turkish border with Syria, and IS gains in and around Palmyra.

According to John Ford of the US Army’s Judge Advocate General Corps, a clear pattern explains these changes. IS has been able to thrive in areas with a majority Arab Sunni population, but has failed to take hold in areas where Sunni Arabs are the minority or where effective rival ground forces oppose them.

In northern Iraq and Syria, IS was pushed back by Kurdish militias who had the advantage of fighting on their home turf. IS was not able to take Baghdad, home to the largest Shi’ite population of any Iraqi city. Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias came to the government’s rescue in its defence.

By contrast, in the area around Palmyra, IS expanded – central Syria is predominately Sunni and lacks militant groups that can rival IS. Now, though, IS positions around Palmyra are coming under heavy fire from Russian airstrikes, and it is far from certain that IS will be able to maintain its stranglehold on that ancient city and continue its wanton destruction of some of the world’s most valued antiquities.

At its peak in 2014, IS had seized about a third of Iraqi territory. It has subsequently lost a good proportion of that. After more than a year of hard fighting, October 2015 saw pro-government forces wrest control of the oil refinery of Baiji. In Ramadi, Iraqi security forces have steadily progressed in recent months and, according to Iraqi commanders, have encircled the city.

Across the border, US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are preparing for an attack on the town of al-Hawl, while a US-led coalition air operation, dubbed Tidal Wave II, has targeted the Islamic State’s oil infrastructure, disrupting the group’s ability to fund its operations.

General Ismail, commander of Special Forces in Al Anbar province, believes that IS mounted its terrorist attack in Paris on November 13 “in order to keep up the morale of their fighters and distract from their losses in Syria and Iraq.” If so, it may well be that, on this occasion, IS miscalculated badly and actually shot itself in the foot. It is unlikely that IS’s strategic planners could have foreseen the extent to which Paris acted as a wake-up call to the global community, nor the consequent degree of co-ordinated determination, matched by action, to see an end to IS.

Evidence of this was forthcoming on December 15, when Saudi Arabia unexpectedly announced the formation of a 34-state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism, with a joint operations centre based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations. The countries involved include not only Arab states such as Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, but other Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia and Pakistan.

The announcement cited “a duty to protect the Islamic nation from the evils of all terrorist groups and organizations whatever their sect and name which wreak death and corruption on earth and aim to terrorize the innocent.”

Significantly Sunni Saudi Arabia’s arch rival for influence in the Arab world, Shi’ite Iran, is not included in the alliance, and by implication is lumped together with Islamic State as among the “terrorist groups and organizations.”

Saudi’s deputy crown prince and defence minister, Mohammed bin Salman, said that the campaign would coordinate efforts to fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan. “There will be international coordination with major powers,” he said.

On December 2 the UK’s House of Commons voted decisively to extend its anti-IS air strikes from Iraq to Syria. When it emerged that Conservative Muslim MP, Nusrat Ghani, had voted in favor of doing so, she received a torrent of abuse and threats. In response, she declared that military success was a key factor in enabling IS to recruit more people to their evil cause,

“Daesh are an embryonic state,” she said, “and their power comes from taking territory. Their ideology is based on them having territory. To be able to challenge and remove Daesh we have to take back territory.”

She spoke for the consensus of the civilized world’s opinion.

We’re all familiar with the story of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer by Robert L. May (a class of 1926 Dartmouth alumnus) but scientifically speaking, what are the optical benefits of a shiny red nose on a foggy Christmas Eve?

In a paper just published by Frontiers for Young Minds, Nathaniel J. Dominy, Professor of Anthropology at Dartmouth, explores this very question. By citing research by other scientists on the unique eyes and vision of Arctic reindeer, Dominy explains why Rudolph is able to lead Santa and his team of eight tiny reindeer through the thick Arctic fog.

Dominy points out that Arctic reindeer (scientific name Rangifer tarandus tarandus) can see ultraviolet light, which is invisible to humans and most mammals–a trait that comes especially handy in mid-winter when the sun is low on the horizon and the high scattered light from the atmosphere is mainly blueish and ultraviolet.

In addition, the reflective tissue (tapetum lucidum) in reindeer eyes changes from a rich golden color during the summer months to a deep blue color during the winter months. This tissue (which causes eye shine at night) helps nocturnal animals see in the dark, and a blue one is expected to improve their ability to see blue light. Yet, fog extinguishes blue light more readily than red light, which may make it especially difficult for Santa’s reindeer to see blue effectively, never mind fly.

This is where Rudolph’s luminescent (glowing) nose comes into play, as it serves as an excellent fog light for navigating his fellow reindeer.

Given that the redness of Rudolph’s nose is similar to red holly berries, Dominy was able to estimate the color of light emitted from Rudolph’s nose by measuring the color of holly berries. He found that Rudolph’s nose is probably the maximum level of redness that mammals are able to see, which may explain why Rudolph’s nose is effective as a fog light.

According to Dominy, Rudolph’s nose also poses a problem. Reindeer noses are extremely vascular, which causes them to lose body heat through their noses. A glowing nose could cause excessive heat loss for Rudolph, putting him at risk of hypothermia.

“It is therefore imperative for children to provide high-calorie foods to help Rudolph replenish his energetic reserves on Christmas Eve,” said Dominy. As a result of the unique properties of Rudolph, it is no wonder that with a nose so bright, he is able to effectively guide Santa’s sleigh.

By Bhaswati Mukherjee*

India is one of the founding Members of the UN. Though under colonial rule at that time, India’s leadership before Independence emphasised India’s commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN and underlined India’s determination to contribute to international peace and security, including and particularly in the field of peace keeping. Permanent membership of the Security Council is an important and legitimate aspiration for India in order to play its rightful role in the maintenance of international peace and security.

In its quest for global peace and security, India has played a leadership role in the United Nations General Assembly and in the Security Council. India has been a non-permanent Member of the UN Security Council seven times. In 2011-12, India received 188 of the 190 votes in the UN General Assembly. India was one of the first countries to raise the issue of apartheid in South Africa at the United Nations. We were one of the first to welcome back a multi racial, multi ethnic and democratic South Africa to the UN.

India’s nuclear doctrine at the United Nations is in consonance with its commitment to achieve global disarmament. India stands for total nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It is the only nuclear weapons state to demand total elimination of nuclear weapons. India has rejected the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) as discriminatory since it sought to establish the status-quo in favour of the then 5 existing nuclear weapon states, while imposing disarmament on the rest of the world.

India does not maintain a constituted nuclear force on a heightened state of alert. The country’s nuclear weapons remain under the control of the civilian Nuclear Command Authority (NCA), comprised of a Political Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, which is “the sole body which can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.” Our no-first-use policy (NFU) is based on our doctrine that while we would not be the first to use nuclear weapons, we would assuredly retaliate massively and inflict untold damage on our adversaries if attacked. This is our doctrine of credible minimum deterrence.

In arguing for membership of the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG), India has proved itself effectively to be a responsible nuclear power. We have maintained a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and support negotiations of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) that is “universal, non-discriminatory, and internationally verifiable.” At the same time, we have remained outside of the NPT, because of our hostile, nuclear weaponized neighbours. We have, for the same reasons, not signed the CTBT.

In the First Committee of the General Assembly, India annually tables three draft resolutions: ‘Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons’, ‘Reducing Nuclear Danger’ and ‘Measures to Prevent Terrorists from Acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction’. This is intended to strengthen international nuclear security culture, to which India remain firmly committed.

India-US civil nuclear agreement is of primordial importance to India’s national nuclear security culture. It has been both a reflection of the major transformation in Indo-U.S. relations since the end of the Cold War as also a driver of their further transformation. Neither side would have been able to contemplate such a significant departure from their established positions in a sensitive area such as the nuclear domain, if they had not already achieved a fair degree of congruence in their respective strategic perspectives as well as mutual confidence. An even more complex set of negotiations had to be undertaken with the 48 member Nuclear Suppliers’ Group in order to ensure a waiver for India from its own rules and guidelines. The NSG finally adopted a consensus decision on giving India a clean waiver from its rules. India had finally made a successful re-entry into the international civilian nuclear market. India is very much in the international mainstream as far as nuclear issues are concerned despite continuing to be outside the NPT. Its membership of the NSG is likely to come through. This would ensure international recognition of its potential for great power status.

It is a matter of deep regret that the UN Security Council does not reflect current political realities. India’s credentials for permanent membership are well documented and recognised. A country of 1.3 billion with over 160 million Muslims, India is the world’s largest liberal democracy based on rule of law and human rights. Participation in peace keeping operations is the key element of the credentials required for Permanent Membership in the Security Council. India is the largest contributor to UN peace keeping operations, having contributed 1,60,000 troops to 43 of 65 of UN peace keeping operations. More than 160 Indian defence and police personnel have laid down their lives serving under the UN blue flag. At present, Indian Armed Forces are part of 7 of the 14 ongoing UN peace keeping missions.

India’s bid for permanent membership of UNSC is backed by four permanent members, namely France, Russia, the United Kingdom and United States. Our candidature for Permanent Membership of UN Security Council took a great leap forward when the UN General Assembly adopted on 14th September, 2015, its Decision 69/560 on Security Council Reform. This historic decision was adopted without a vote, despite opposition by China, Pakistan and others in the spoiler group that calls itself as “Uniting for Consensus”.

India views the UN as a forum that can play a crucial role to guarantee and maintain international peace and security. India has worked with other partners to strengthen the UN system to combat new global challenges such as terrorism, piracy, disarmament, human rights, peace building and peace keeping. India is proactively pursuing a vigorous multi-lateral agenda, at a time when the world is facing these new challenges, based on its national security templates. India is fully aware that the strengthening of multilateralism through the United Nations represents the best hope in a troubled world. Our renewed multilateral engagements have given a new shape and strategic direction to India’s foreign policy imperatives. India has finally demonstrated to the global community that India matters, that India has arrived. This message needed to be delivered and has been done this time most effectively.

*Ambassador Bhaswati Mukherjee is the former permanent representative of India to UNESCO, Paris. She can be reached at: editor@spsindia.in

By Wiiliam Chislett*

The two upstart parties, the centrist Ciudadanos (‘Citizens’) and the anti-austerity Podemos (‘We Can’), broke the hegemony of the conservative Popular Party (PP) and the centre-left Socialists (PSOE), the two mainstream parties that have alternated in power since 1982, but produced a very fragmented parliament that makes the creation of a stable government fraught with difficulties.

The PP won the most seats (123 out of 350), but way down on its absolute majority of 186 (see Figure 1). Mariano Rajoy, the incumbent PP Prime Minister, failed to convince Spaniards that he was the best bet for continuing the economic recovery. Had Ciudadanos obtained as many seats as the opinion polls had predicted, it would probably have been the kingmaker and probably backed a minority PP government. But its 40 seats still leave the PP 13 seats short of the ‘magic number’ of 176. The combination of the Socialists and Podemos (159) is also short of a majority (17), but could make it if some deputies from Popular Unity and Basque and Catalan nationalists come on board.

The one option that would work and the most logical would be a German-style grand coalition between the PP and the Socialists, which would give such a government a comfortable majority (213 seats). But neither of the mainstream parties wants this, particularly the Socialists whose dominance of the left has been shattered by the surge from nowhere of Podemos, a party that was only formed in January 2014.

Everything is thus up in the air, and a fresh general election next year cannot be ruled out. What is crystal clear is that the shape of Spanish politics has changed significantly and will have to be much more consensual.

The PP’s and the Socialists’ share of the vote plummeted from 73.3% in 2011 to just over 50% (see Figure 2), while Podemos and Ciudadanos between them won 34.5%. The two mainstream parties are severely but not mortally wounded: the number of PP seats in parliament is the lowest since 1989 (107) and the Socialists the lowest since 1977 (118). The two traditional parties, however, maintained their hold on the Senate, winning 171 of the 208 elected seats (58 are appointed by regional parliaments).

Ciudadanos and Podemos channelled the anger at a long succession of corruption scandals and the economic and social impact of a long recession. Spain experienced one of the steepest declines in confidence in national governments between 2007 and 2014, according to the OECD’s Government at a Glance 2015 report. Confidence fell 27 percentage points to 21% compared with a decline in the OECD average from 45.2% to 41.8%.

Disaffection with the political establishment was also accompanied by a demand for generational renewal: Albert Rivera, the Ciudadanos leader, is aged 36, Iglesias is 37, while Pedro Sánchez, the Socialists’ leader, is 43 (he replaced the 64-year-old Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba in 2014) and the Popular Party’s Mariano Rajoy is 60.

The main surprise was the performance of Ciudadanos, which opinion polls before the election predicted would win more than 60 seats, ahead of Podemos. The outcome on the day, however, was bound to be uncertain because up to 40% of the electorate had not made up its mind –a far higher proportion than in any other general election–.

The clear victor was Podemos; its results were something of a personal triumph for the pony-tailed Pablo Iglesias. The party began as a kind of offshoot of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, founded by the late Hugo Chávez, the country’s President for 11 years. In a U-turn following Podemos’s realisation that many of its sympathisers viewed the party as far more radical than themselves, the charismatic Iglesias distanced himself from a country plagued by food shortages, the world’s highest inflation rate and the regime’s US-bashing ideology propagated by Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro. Podemos presented itself as a Nordic-style social-democrat party.

Podemos was particularly successful in Catalonia where in an alliance it won 12 seats, the largest number and more than Democracy and Freedom, the new nationalist party of Artur Mas, the incumbent regional Prime Minister of Catalonia, who since September’s election in the region has failed to win enough parliamentary support to carry on. In that snap election, billed as a de facto vote on establishing a separate state, the Junts pel Sí alliance (‘Together for Yes’) won 62 of the 135 seats in the Catalan parliament. Mas has one more chance to win sufficient backing in the regional parliament. The options in Catalonia are someone other than Mas as prime minister or fresh elections.

Podemos rejected the notion that September’s election could be considered a referendum on independence and focused for the general election on issues such as unemployment and corruption. It is, however, the only party of the four main ones that supports the right of Catalans to have a legal and binding referendum on whether to establish a sovereign state.

Spain has entered uncharted waters. The general election showed widespread support for change. What shape it will take remains to be seen.

About the author:
*William Chislett, Associate Analyst, Elcano Royal Institute | @WilliamChislet3

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

A cafeteria worker at an Idaho middle school was fired for giving lunch to a 12-year-old student who said she was hungry and had no money for food. The worker said she tried to pay for the lunch, but the school rejected her attempt.

Dalene Bowden, a former employee of Irving Middle School in Pocatello, Idaho, said she was first placed on leave last week, then summarily fired, by the Pocatello/Chubbuck School District for the theft of school district property and inaccurate transactions in her duties as a food service worker, according to the Idaho State Journal.

Bowden, a three year worker with the school district, said that the student had told her she had no money for the $1.70 lunch. Bowden then asked her supervisor if she could purchase the meal for the girl. When the offer was denied, Bowden gave out the lunch for free. After being placed on termination leave on December 15, Bowden received a brief letter, signed by District 25 Director of Human Resources Susan Petit, informing her of her firing.

This is just breaking my heart,” Bowden, a breast cancer survivor, told the Idaho State Journal. “And they couldn’t even bother to put my check in with the letter.”

School district board members are not commenting on the termination.

The school district said that students who go over an $11 charge limit for weekly lunches are given peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and milk. Parents are notified when a student’s account hits the limit.

But the policy comes with what some are calling a harsh, humiliating caveat. Bowden said that if a student exceeds that charge limit, food workers are instructed to take the child’s full lunch and dump it in front of the child and her peers.

“I broke the rules, but I offered to pay for the meal and I don’t think I deserved to lose my job over it,” Bowden said.

Bowden is currently raising money to hire a lawyer in an effort to “change the law,” she wrote on a fundraising website.

An online petition was started by Raushelle Guzman, a mother of two children in the school district, over the weekend in an attempt to reinstate Bowden. As of midday Wednesday, the petition has nearly 40,000 signatures.

“I think (Bowden) did the right thing and I think we need to make sure that every child that wants lunch can have lunch,” Guzman told the Idaho State Journal. “I think the district’s policy needs to be changed. We do not need to humiliate or demean any child or worker in that situation. Students must be provided with an adequate meal.”

Guzman wrote in the petition that the 12-year-old student in question had actually not exceeded her $11 limit, and had to pay for the lunch anyway. The school’s strict policy regarding the limit “could be handled in so many more compassionate ways,” Guzman wrote, urging reform of the policy.

Interim school district superintendent Douglas Howell said last week that District 25 has programs that offer free or reduced-price lunches to students from low-income families. On Fridays, District 25 also sends food home with some students for the weekend, a program run by the Idaho Foodbank.

Bowden said in her three years as a cafeteria worker, she only once received a reprimand for her performance on the job, when she gave a student a free cookie.

“I love my job, I really do,” she wrote on her fundraising page. “This just breaks my heart, and I was in the wrong, but what do you do when the kid tells you that they’re hungry, and they don’t have any money? I handed her the tray.”

By Mahir Ali

Last Sunday’s election results in Spain have vindicated the pundits who were hedging their bets. As opinion polls predicted, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s conservative People’s Party (PP) has emerged with the largest number of seats, while falling well short of a majority.

It could, potentially, remain at the helm, but Rajoy’s expressed wish to “form a stable government” is just wishful thinking under the circumstances. At the same time, his party’s primary rival, the Socialist party (PSOE), also lost substantial support even after its dismal showing in 2011.

What sets this week’s poll apart from previous elections is that in the past the PP and PSOE split between 70 and 80 percent of the vote between them; this time they collectively fell short of 50 percent. The two main reasons for this outcome are the left-wing Podemos movement, which came into existence less than two years ago, yet has emerged as the third largest political force after securing nearly 21 percent of the popular vote, and the centrist Ciudadanos, whose anti-corruption stance helped it to wrest away a substantial chunk of the conservative vote.

Yet neither the PP plus Ciudadanos nor the PSOE plus Podemos boast sufficient parliamentary strength to form a majority government. Besides, there are serious issues militating against these combinations. After all, Ciudadanos vowed not to back the PP and could compromise its popular base by going back on that promise, while Podemos and the Socialists are essentially rivals rather than natural allies.

Podemos sprang from the loins of the delightfully monikered Indignados movement that spearheaded popular protests against capitalist voraciousness in the wake of the global financial crisis, and its raison d’etre relies on challenging the status quo rather than compromising with one of its key components.

The party’s savvy leader, Pablo Iglesias, has cause to be pleased — albeit not complacent — about what Podemos has managed to achieve at the ballot box. It would probably have done even better, trumping the PSOE at the very least, had its Syriza comrades in Greece achieved something by opposing the austerity diktat of the European Union (EU).

Instead, the government of Alexis Tsipras chose to capitulate to Brussels’ demands after initially putting up a struggle that captured the international imagination.

Despite its failures, Syriza’s endeavors were rewarded with a second electoral victory within a year, which indicated that the Greek electorate was unwilling to revert to the status quo ante, when power was traditionally disputed between the main conservative and socialist parties, and a change of government made precious little difference the average citizen’s life.

Spain is not Greece, obviously, but the similarities between the two extend beyond their comparable status as victims of the EU’s neoliberal predilections. Both countries returned to democracy in the 1970s following fascist interludes, which in the case of Spain was stretched across four decades. The dictatorship of Francisco Franco followed the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler backed the fascist generals while the rest of the West refused to support their republican opponents, often dubbing those who took up cudgels against the dark forces as “premature anti-fascists.”

In Greece, following its German occupation during World War II, the West tended to back former Nazi collaborators against the communists who had constituted the backbone of the resistance, while Joseph Stalin forbade assistance to progressive forces in keeping with his agreement with the US and Britain on zones of influence. Long before that agreement, though, among the international brigades in Spain, forces loyal to Stalin had devoted a considerable proportion of their energies to depleting the Trotskyites, thereby facilitating Franco’s ascendancy.

If that sounds like ancient history, it is surely remarkable that Western Europe, in the throes of the Cold War, quite happily tolerated fascist dictatorships in Spain and Greece well into the 1970s. In both cases, the circumstances that propelled these countries into a different era were largely internal — in the case of Spain, the idea of a transition emerged only after Franco’s death.

Given the tribulations and exigencies of the not-so-distant past, it is not particularly surprising that the democratic process in countries such as Spain, Greece and, for that matter, Portugal is still in flux.

This volatility isn’t necessarily a negative, just as stability is often overrated. In Spain, despite the primacy of the PP, there is plenty of evidence that the electorate has voted for change. The shape it will take is likely to be determined in the weeks ahead, following negotiations and confabulations with King Felipe VI. The result may well echo that of October’s outcome in Portugal, where an ostensible conservative victory led within days to a socialist coalition.

It can almost be guaranteed, though, that volatility rather than stability will be the order of the day, and the preferable option may well turn out to be another electoral contest, which will ensue if a government fails to emerge within two months.

By İhsan Bal*

The coordinated and violent terror attacks in Paris which resulted in an agonizing tragedy elevated counter-terrorism once again to the top rank in the devilish list of items crowding the global security agenda today. To tell the truth, the modern-age struggle against terrorism can be best described as an unending quest against an unruly enemy which has reared its ugly head time and again over the last 240 years.

Neither Nechayev in Russia nor Karl-Heinz in Germany could have possibly foreseen the influence of their 19th-century ‘philosophy of the bomb’, which essentially laid the theoretical groundwork upon which terrorism has evolved into its contemporary form, reaching as far in time and space as exemplified in figures such as Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia and al-Baghdadi in Iraq in the first two decades of the 21st century.

Both the U.S. and Russia continue to intensely mull over how to eradicate the menace of terrorism despite being vested with the most-sophisticated weaponry in the entire globe and securing the support of nearly all other major powers that come to mind. Notwithstanding the relative and occasional successes they achieve as far as their all-out struggle against terrorism is concerned, it still seems joint efforts are swiftly driven to failure for the most part by the intervention of an invisible hand.

For instance, people around the world were expecting to see consensus replace confrontation and polarization as the Cold War came to an end. Proxy wars, the principle generators of terrorism, were thought to be but a disturbing memory that belonged to the past epoch; and Marxist guerillas would eventually feel compelled to give in. But shortly after this brief moment of idealism, such expectations were proven to be far from reality because states, i.e. the dominant actors of international relations, chose to lean towards conflict rather than compromise. As to the second and most important reason why terrorism has managed to stay alive: it is the persistent lack of focus on the root cause of widespread terrorism. That is, draining the ‘swamps’ where terrorism freely proliferates and takes shelter is still not regarded as the most important item on the global counter-terrorism agenda.

Then, why do states frequently fall into the traps set by terrorists, despite their overwhelming capacity and much-superior hardware? Why can’t the overall impact of counter-terrorism live up to expectations?

Paris attacks at first glance

Let’s start by narrowing down our perspective and focusing on the specific case of the Paris attacks – the most recent terrorist attack in our memories – before moving on to draw more general lessons from the broader subject. In the aftermath of the Paris events, we were immediately confronted with a situation in which tougher measures were being taken one after another against immigrants while members of Muslim minorities in Europe were once again forced to strongly demonstrate their loyalty as obedient citizens. In a sense, the frightening face of terrorism has taken complete hold of the decision-making mechanisms of European countries as their fundamental reasoning was instantly paralyzed by absolute shock.

Analyzing the circumstances accurately, ISIS has apparently realized multiple objectives at once by targeting France yet again after its attacks against Charlie Hebdo last January, and this has resulted in effective restrictions on civil liberties. This time, the terrorist group targeted a football game, a live performance by a popular band, and popular cafes, all of which lie at the heart of everyday urban life.

Firstly, no doubt ISIS directly challenges the Western way of life, culture, and civilization. Moreover, with its claim that it carries out such attacks in the name of Islam, it also turns Muslim minorities in Europe as a whole into a target. It would be naive to think ISIS had not calculated the probable consequences of the flood of rage that would sweep over Europe following the attacks. This rising tide of wrath will possibly rage out of control at some point, hitting resident Muslim communities in Europe with a Middle Eastern background – whether Arabs or members of another ethnic group. Thus, new militant identities based on antagonism, detachment, and fragmentation should be expected to emerge and consolidate throughout the following decades.

Many Western strategists such as Robin Niblett, the Director of the Chatham House, reiterate their warning that overreacting to these attacks by holding all Muslims and anyone with a Middle Eastern or Arab background responsible will play directly into the hands of terrorists. In this way, we may be entering a new period in which those pledging to “shoot the terrorists in their homes” increasingly become casualties in their own backyards.

The vicious cycle of counter-terrorism

The chaotic and tragic context confronting the entire globe today is the rational consequence of the chain of events preceding it. Therefore, constantly blaming terrorists is not enough by itself to solve the complex problem we are faced with. As a matter of fact, terrorists are referred to as such due to their blatant disregard for any laws and rules when pushing for their agenda. The real issue is whether states combating terrorism can maintain their superiority by preserving the rule of law, respecting democracy, and clinging to liberties, which taken together allows them to claim the moral and legitimate high ground.

The number of fighter jets flying over Syria increases after every terror attack. The extent of civilian casualties resulting from miscalculations and the true accuracy of air strikes in terms of their ability to hit actual terrorist targets will soon be revealed. France declared its intention to speed up the struggle against terrorism, and vowed to triple its bombing capacity by dispatching its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier to the region. Likewise, Russia has scaled up its military presence in Syria, declaring recently that over 400 civilians were killed during the airstrikes it has been carrying out since last September. But can we expect such steps to amount to lasting success in the long-term struggle against terrorism? How effectively is the vital distinction between terrorist targets and innocent people being made in practice? New tragedies stemming from repeated rounds of airstrikes will inevitably instigate renewed waves of immigrants flooding Europe’s borders. Will this type of engagement not fuel further rage, suffering, and despair?

Such constitutes the vicious circle that not only renders the moral and legitimate basis of the struggle debatable but also embodies the essential weakness of counter-terrorism policies. Westerners have spent considerable time and energy researching what can be summarized as ways to generate a ‘counter-discourse to tackle extremism’ and constrict ‘the free space that is being exploited by terrorist discourse and propaganda’, the outcome of which has manifested itself as nothing but a simple summation of pluses and minuses on a scoreboard.

However, what we call ‘counter-discourse’ should focus instead on translating related ideas and counter-terrorist operations into slogans, movies, books, newspapers, and opinion pieces with reference to existing circumstances. Trying to understand the intricacies of and drawing lessons from the early 21st century context in Afghanistan or Iraq will undoubtedly fit this purpose; this is in stark contrast to ill-motivated attempts at going back as far as 14 centuries or even two millennia for the sake of interpreting what the Quran or the Bible actually intended to say.

Why does history repeat itself?

The actions taken by the Americans in response to the largest terror attack in their history on September 11, 2001, have served as the ultimate model for the rest of the world for the last 15 years or so when it comes to how to handle counter-terrorism. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are salient examples of this.

It was in this period that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo gained horrible reputations as the very embodiments of torture and humiliation. Reverting to such practices stands as the primary mistake made by Americans in the war against terror. Terrorists have benefited immensely from a wide range of similar practices perpetrated by the West, in addition to tapping into the horror created by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, these facts still provide modern-day terrorists with a vast supply of key emotional ingredients such tension, ambition, and rage that allow their narrative to sustain itself.

To be fair, one should also mention some major steps that were taken in the right direction. In the case of Afghanistan, the loosening of purse strings for public infrastructure investments, the establishment of several light industrial facilities, the lifting of literacy rates among the youth from 30 to 47 percent thanks to a nationwide campaign that allowed both girls and boys to enjoy the benefits of education, and the introduction of elections notwithstanding all the related delays and drawbacks cannot be disregarded.

Then what is the principle problem here? Looking at previous years’ data on the U.S. federal budget, the total cost of the prolonged war in Afghanistan – i.e. the most time-consuming overseas intervention in U.S. history – is estimated at over 1 trillion USD, whereas the 100 billion USD that was spared for efforts to alter the socio-economic and political climate in this country which bred terrorism in the first place is only a fraction of this sum. However, the secret to achieving lasting success in the war against terror rests not in the ability to kill a handful of figureheads such as Bin Laden but rather in raising the number of those like Nobel-laureate teenage activist Malala Yousafzai.

Indeed, historical experience in counter-terrorism provides sufficient clues as to what sort of ruptures and wild fluctuations that repeated sorties by fighter jets over Syria will possibly engender in the following decades. Everyone with an interest on the subject should be able to realize by now that terrorist groups like ISIS, Al-Shabab, and Boko Haram, which can be best described as ‘neo-Al Qaeda’ variations, owe their rapid rise to the strategic mistakes made during the war against terror after 9/11 and are still feeding on the legacy of the U.S. campaign in Iraq. It seems now that we are once again setting out on the same path as if no lessons were drawn from the bitter experience of recent years.

The fact that counter-terrorism is evolving into a much more complicated, costly, and difficult task with each passing day is beyond dispute. However, repeating the basic mistakes of the past is obviously not the proper way to bear the brunt of this grave challenge. No doubt intelligence services, the police, special corps, and military troops are indispensable components of this struggle, however, humanity’s shared experience points to the necessity of incorporating a larger vision supported by wisdom, virtue, and extensive capacity into this struggle in order to obtain favorable results at the end of the day.

Considering this, the task of refuting those arguments that are frequently instrumentalized by terrorist propaganda networks necessitates basing our counter-arguments on solid examples, actual practices, and real life stories. Inspiring stories of individual struggles, workable education models, investments with a human face, and developmental leaps forward should be at the heart of an all-encompassing campaign against terror. Furthermore, prudent and farsighted ideas should also be expressed more loudly. As articulated by a politician in Washington, the time is ripe for a “New Marshall Plan” covering the whole of Middle East that “foresees the modernization of schools and moderation of curriculums, and thus generates a roadmap aimed at teaching the region’s children to use their hands to build and live together, rather than to blow up stuff.”

If such novel changes in perspective can be put into practice, the struggle against terror can gain substantial and sustained momentum. Otherwise, treatment methods that are costlier than the illness itself will yield serious challenges for future generations. Unfortunately, our experience since 9/11 clearly suggests that measures taken to combat terrorism have largely worked to the terrorists’ advantage instead. The acknowledgement of this ugly truth implies drastically amending our current methods in a way that ultimately denies terrorists what they actually desire.

*Prof. Ihsan Bal is Head of the Academic Council at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK). Bal is a prominent expert on terrorism, ethnic conflict and security studies.

By Rupak Bhattacharjee*

In a significant step towards enhancing India’s connectivity with its eastern neighbour Myanmar, Chief Minister of Manipur Okram Ibobi Singh flagged off the trial run of the much awaited Imphal-Mandalay bus service on December 9. Although India and Myanmar maintain close socio-cultural and commercial ties, it is the first direct transport link between the two nations. Myanmar acts as a land bridge between South and Southeast Asia and beyond and this 579 km-long bus route will take India’s bilateral relations with the neighbouring country to a new level.

In order to realise the goals envisioned in the ambitious “Act East” policy, it is important for India to liberalise immigration formalities, upgrade border infrastructure and improve transport connectivity between the North Eastern region and Myanmar. After remaining indifferent to the needs and aspirations of North East for several decades, the Centre has undertaken many projects to do away with the region’s infrastructural bottlenecks and economic backwardness.

This peripheral part of India gained prominence in national policy making only after the Centre decided to widen its engagement with the eastern neighbours in the early 1990’s. The present National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has attached priority to the overall development of the sensitive North East. While chairing the first meeting of the Executive Committee of the North Eastern Council in New Delhi on October 6, 2015, Union Minister of State for the Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER) Dr. Jitendra Singh observed that to “Act East effectively”, the country needs to “act proximal and empower the North Eastern region along the international borders”.

India enjoys historic ties with the port city of Mandalay. It is home to 150,000-strong Indian diaspora who played a dominant role during the British rule. Among the North Eastern states that share border with Myanmar, Manipur has one of the strongest linkages with this Southeast Asian country. About 20,000 Meiteis, Manipur’s major ethnic group, are settled in Mandalay division and the direct bus service will enable them to visit their native land.

The introduction of the cross-border bus service has long been demanded by the people of Manipur. A resolution was passed by the Manipur Legislative Assembly on August 1, 2003 for opening of the bus route. The state government submitted a detail proposal in this regard to the DoNER ministry and ministry of Road Transport and Highways in June 2009.

The previous United Progressive Alliance government took up the issue with the Myanmar government and it was set to be finalised during former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the neighbouring country in 2012. The text of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for a weekly bus service between Imphal and Mandalay was agreed upon in the bilateral inter-ministerial meeting held on September 17, 2012.

However, there had been no forward movement in the project for nearly two years. It received a fresh lease of life after the NDA government assumed office in May 2014. An Indian delegation from the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways visited Nay Pyi Taw on June 14, 2014 to finalise the MoU for the proposed bus route with the Transport Planning Department of the Ministry of Rail Transportation of Myanmar. Subsequently, field survey was conducted by a joint team of India and Myanmar. The Indian team submitted its report to the Centre for signing a MoU with Myanmar.

Since the late 1990’s, India has emerged as one of the major development partners of Myanmar and been consistently engaged in the up gradation of the neighbouring country’s infrastructure. India built a 250 km-long road from the border town of Tamu to Kalemyo via Kalewa. This road is popularly called the India-Myanmar Friendship Road.

As part of its “Look East” policy to expand bilateral cooperation with eastern neighbour Myanmar, New Delhi conceived the road project in 1993. India’s Border Roads Organisation started building the road in 1997 and it became functional on February 13, 2001. The Ministry of External Affairs funded the total cost of $ 30 million for the road. The renovation of the road was essential for cross-border movement of people and goods. New Delhi is currently involved in the up gradation of 70 bridges on the Friendship Road which is a component of the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and also chosen route for Imphal-Mandalay bus service.

India is developing cross-border connectivity and Myanmar’s transport infrastructure mainly for strengthening bilateral ties with strategically-located and resource-rich eastern neighbour. India is Myanmar’s fourth largest trading partner. The bilateral trade, which stood at $ 557 million in 2005, is now about to reach $ 2 billion. The economic ties between the two nations would further deepen and broaden after the signing of the India-Myanmar-Thailand Motor Vehicles Agreement and opening of the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway.

Manipur hold key to India’s growing trade and commerce with Myanmar as the lion’s share of the bilateral business is carried through Moreh. The Imphal-Mandalay bus service could also stimulate the economic activities in North East especially Manipur. The experts believe that the NDA government’s “Act East” initiative has the potential of turning North East into a tourist gateway to Southeast Asian nations. With Myanmar, which is often referred to as “Golden Land”, gradually democratising the polity and opening up its economy in the last few years, the country’s tourism are hospitality are fast becoming booming industries.

India stands to gain immensely from the politico-economic changes that are taking place on its eastern front. New Delhi should seize the opportunity and explore the possibility of health and spiritual tourism and expanding cooperation in the education sector. North East has fairly developed medical facilities, including super specialty hospitals which may be offered to the people of Myanmar. Moreover, every Myanmarese national seeks to visit Bodh Gaya in Bihar at least once in the lifetime. The journey through land route is generally preferred as traveling by air from Yangon to Kolkata is expensive.

Education is another area in which India could provide its expertise to Myanmar. Addressing the delegates at the “International Conference on South East Asian Countries Tourism and India’s Act East Policy” jointly organised by Myanmar and India in Mandalay on July 3-4, 2015, Consul General of India in Mandalay N. Nandakumar noted that the country’s premier tourism institutions may assist Myanmar’s tourism management institutes which are in a embryonic stage.

Thus viewed from various perspectives, the Imphal-Mandalay bus service once become fully operational will not only boost bilateral commercial ties and people-to-people contacts between the two neighbouring nations but also add fillip to India’s “Act East” policy.

*Dr. Rupak Bhattacharjee is an independent political analyst based in New Delhi. He can be reached at: editor@spsindia.in

By Balasubramaniyan Viswanathan

Recent efforts by the international coalition against ISIS have focused on cutting-off the cash flow of the Islamic State, particularly in destroying revenue flows from its illegal oil trade. Air sortie after sortie have targeted the illegitimate oil-producing and smuggling infrastructure of the Islamic State. Yet notwithstanding some serious damage caused to Islamic State’s oil trade infrastructure, the international community is still far away from cutting off ISIS’ finances.

United Nations Resolution 2253, which culminated from the first-ever meeting of finance ministers on 17th December, with the primary objective to disrupt all sources of funding for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, only reinforces this resolve on the part of the international community. However, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon seemed skeptical and appeared to reiterate the challenges faced by the international community, stating that the “terrorists continue to adapt their tactics and diversify their funding sources.” Addressing the granular aspects with respect to diversification and application of funds in governance mechanisms, which has provided the Islamic State with an internal source of income from ISIS-controlled areas, are the key challenges facing the counter terrorism financing initiative.

The Islamic State’s financial sources appear to have been diversified and evolved concomitantly with the terrorist group’s expansion. For instance, if we are to compare the growth of the Islamic State in two stages i.e., the first one from 2005-2012, and the second one from 2013 onwards, there are observable transitions in the financial sources (Table 1). During the initial stages, the Islamic State in its earlier form of Islamic State in Iraq (IQI), relied more on traditional sources of funding like high end donors, kidnap for ransom, looting, etc., However, once Islamic State started holding on to its territory in the second stage, oil trade, taxation and new funding sources like grassroots funding became its financial backbone.

The Islamic State has intentionally internalized and institutionalized its financial sources in the following ways: Firstly, sanctions by the international community have ostensibly targeted key donors for the Islamic State, primarily based in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. However, in 2014, David.S.Cohen, United State Treasury Undersecretary acknowledged that the Islamic State does not rely heavily on contributions from these high end donors. Given this fact, the sanctioning regime has been largely ineffective as Islamic State’s financial portfolio rapidly replaced these negligible high end donors outside its territory with grassroots funding. This transition was a blessing in disguise. And given its own experience in managing large private donors, Islamic State may have deliberately moved to grassroots funding which does not affect its autonomy. This attempt to move away from large private donations to high volume, low value crowdfunding using modern communications platforms appears to be highly deliberate and a calculated move to avoid detection and also unwanted political restraints from the donors.

And if we are to study the Sinjar records, the group relied more on contributions from foreign fighters in the late 2000s. According to the Soufan Group (TSG), the current strength of foreign fighters is estimated to be around 27000 – 30000 fighters, which has more than doubled since its 2014 estimate of 12000 fighters. As large number of foreign fighters started enlisting with the Islamic State, the relative contribution through them has increased proportionately. And more interestingly, each of these fighters act as de-facto brand ambassadors, spreading Islamic State propaganda through social media within their personal network. This in turn has invariably allowed more radicalized youngsters to contribute directly to the individuals who are not covered under the sanctioning regime, thus rendering it redundant.

Secondly, while financing activity resembled more of a criminal model between 2005 and 2012, it presently resembles a commercial and governance model, clearly in line with the territorial control of the Islamic State. Islamic State’s application of these funds in governance mechanisms in areas under its control has become a robust revenue generation model.

According to Islamic State’s captured administrative documents, Islamic State has established a separate department called Diwan al-Khadamat, (The Office of Services). This department is in charge of levying administrative and utility fees from the general public. For instance, cleaning tax is collected at USD 7 to USD 14 per month, electricity charges at USD 2.50 per month, water charges at USD 1.20 per month in Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State. Islamic state has also improvised to add more income generation capacity in the areas under the control. For instance, in Mosul, the Islamic State has converted an old police station into a 60 stall market with each stall fetching an annual rent of USD 2500. This idea of building infrastructure, providing governance and institutionalizing its revenue streams, which in turn could generate internal sources of revenue, appears to be a classic trait of a proto-state in the making.

Concomitant with this approach, the application of these funds have also evolved to encompass spending on building institutions and systems along with operational expenses like salaries compared to its earlier phase, where most of the funds were allocated to weapons and salaries. Islamic State has created social welfare institutions like schools, an Islamic court system, a consumer protection authority, and policing apparatuses.

Table 1– Transitions in Islamic State Financing Sources

Apart from the above table, Islamic State relies on other assorted revenue and material generation streams which are beyond the purview of any international jurisdiction. For instance, Islamic State collects repentance fees from people in areas under its control. A person is issued a repentance ID for USD 2500 with a renewal fee of USD 200, which signifies that the card holder has repented and abandoned apostasy. On the other hand, repentance also takes the form of surrendering of weapons. Islamic State has practiced this concept of confiscation of weapons, wealth and materials, captured by the Islamic State, which are referred to as Mal-e-Ghanimat or “spoils of war.”

The key difference between the financial structure in the current stage and the previous one is the scale of funding. Previously, Islamic State used to earn approximately USD 1 million per month whereas the current average earning per day is around USD 1-3 million. Though criminal activities have continued to dominate the financial portfolio of the Islamic State, its reliance on looting and robbery has been replaced by a more organized form of taxation and extortion mechanism which is now the mainstay of the Islamic State’s finances. Asset based funding like oil and agricultural trade have also been added to Islamic State’s financial portfolio compared to its earlier financial profile.

These transitions in the financial networks are in a way evolutions borne out of the constant desire to evade countermeasures. For instance, large private donors have been replaced with small grassroots funding due to targeted sanctions on individuals who had been funding Islamic State. Sanctions, which were effective against Al-Qaeda’s “Golden Chain” may not be effective against Islamic State as identifying hundreds of crowdfunding individuals is impossible and impractical. As highlighted on Geopoliticalmonitor previously, the group’s reliance on external sources of revenue is relatively less as the Islamic State has been generating revenues internally from its crowdfunding stream, and has also institutionalized its governance model in order to attain self-sufficiency. While oil revenues could decrease due to targeted air strikes on its oil assets, revenue from taxation and extortion in areas under its control could pose a real challenge to the global anti-ISIS coalition. As counter measures to cut off external revenue from donors and internal revenue from oil bears fruit, the Islamic State could well revert to traditional criminal activities to augur its finances.

Until the Islamic State is deprived of the territory it currently controls, the idea of pushing the Islamic State to penury would be highly futile and a distant utopian dream.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

South Asia’s super power India is steadily increasing its diplomatic profile globally with Indian PM Modi being on a world tour ever since his party BJP came to power in New Delhi. The Indian premier is now in one of the country’s longest standing and most trusted ally, Russia.

With a view to further expanding its bilateral strategic partnership, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has embarked on a two-day visit to Russia on December 23 and will attend the 16th annual summit talks with President Vladimir Putin.

Modi’s Moscow trip is aimed at further expanding the special and privileged strategic ties with a particular focus on nuclear energy, hydrocarbons, defense and trade. After the talks on December 24, the two “time-tested” partners are likely to ink a number of pacts in a range of sectors, including nuclear energy and defense.

The talks between the two countries at the highest level have been taking place alternately in Moscow and New Delhi since 2000. Besides bilateral issues, Modi and Putin are likely to deliberate on a number of global issues having political dimensions including the destabilizing situation in Syria and ways to tackle multifaceted terrorism.

Before leaving for Moscow, Narendra Modi said Russia and India are linked together with an unwavering friendship and strategic partnership. Setting the tone for the visit, the Prime Minister said Russia remained one of India’s “most valued” friends in the world and that he was “very optimistic” about outcomes of the annual summit talks with President Vladimir Putin.

Military goal: Backbone

Russian military hardware has been the backbone of India’s military and even after increased imports from the USA and Israel, Moscow will remain a key supplier for decades to come. India has the world’s third largest army, the fourth largest air force and the seventh largest navy. It is the world’s largest importer of military hardware and among the top 10 spenders on military. And, only 30 percent of equipment is manufactured by military establishment.

On his maiden state visit to Russia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to sign a $1-billion agreement to produce over 200 Kamov 226 helicopters in India after the outright sale of some of them. A formal pact will come in a year after Russian President Vladimir Putin promised to support the ‘Make in India’ program.

The two nations also share close nuclear ties. Russia is already constructing 12 nuclear plants in the country. Further discussion is also expected in this regard. India and Russia are likely to ink a number of pacts in a range of sectors including nuclear energy and defence. The two time-tested partners will focus on expanding economic ties. The two countries are aiming at enhancing annual bilateral trade to $30 billion (Rs 1, 98, 720 crore) over the next ten years from current $10 billion (nearly Rs 66,240 crore).

Besides bilateral issues, the two Prime Ministers are likely to deliberate on a number of global issues having political dimensions including the situation in Syria and ways to tackle terrorism. During the previous summit, the leaders of the two nations had discussed largely about expansion of economic ties.

Procurement policy

India has been raising the defense expenditures to upgrade the military equipment. Projected spending of over $250 billion on procurement in the next 15 years makes the Indian defense sector highly attractive to all potential suppliers. Between 2009 and 2012, $40 billion was spent on procurement of equipment for the air force, navy and army. Fifty-three percent of the total defence budget is being allocated to the Indian Army, 23 percent to the Indian Air Force and 16 percent to the Indian Navy.

The defense sector is dominated by PSUs and Ordnance Factories that in turn source material from over 6,000 small and medium enterprises. A small number of private companies have been part of the sector that includes the Tata Group, Mahindras, L&T, Ashok Leyland, and Reliance Industries and Pipavav in recent years.

Now in order to ensure that there is greater reliance on domestic industries, the Ministry of Defense will, by January 2016, announce a new Defense Procurement Procedure (DPP) that will be watched with much anticipation. Under the new policy, it is expected that Indian private companies will be encouraged to tie-up with foreign companies and strike deals. The government policy now aims to achieve 70 percent indigenization in defense products by 2027. Dependence on critical imports, acceptance of sub-optimal equipment, corruption, and lack of clarity in procurement has marred India’s defense procurement.

The Modi government’s decision to hike FDI in defense to 49 percent, making more products open to the private sector are considered by the corporate bosses as good steps. They now want government to facilitate investments and tie-ups for ‘Make in India’ for “a truly indigenous program” to be kicked off.

Earlier, the Modi government had relaxed its offset policy, exempting foreign firms from obligations like the declaration of the names of Indian offset partners, the amount of FDI and value of equipment. Under the new deal, any foreign company will not have to declare the name of its Indian partner. It will be allowed to set up its factory in India under new offset rules without declaring FDI and value of machines installed there.

A report has detailed suggestions on how to improve the procurement procedure, improve processes and get active participation of private sector. The aim of the new policy is to have 40 percent of defense procurement under the ‘Make in India’ initiative from the current 30 percent, and raising it to 70 percent indigenization within the next five years. A focus on a ‘Buy Indian’ policy will clearly chart out a path to indigenization, and ensure greater Indian private sector participation with foreign partners.

Option

Modi’s trip to Moscow is likely to take the partnership between the two countries to a higher trajectory as the trip is expected to deepen bilateral cooperation in economic, energy and security spheres.

However, that Indian Premier chose Russia for the visit only as a secondary option after the USA is not appreciated by President Putin, though both are well connected to each other through the Shanghai association, would do the rounds in Moscow. Unlike before when India depended heavily on Russian military/war goods, now it buys armaments from other regional markets, including USA, Israel and South Africa.

PM Modi is also expected to visit Kabul on his way back to New Delhi to rejoin domestic politics. Before that, PM Modi will visit the Russian Emercon facility, which is an emergency disaster facility. He will be shown how the country handles civil disasters through this. Prime Minister Modi will also meet Friends of India at the Moscow Expo Centre. He is then scheduled to address the Indian community, after which he would depart for India.

India possibly foresees a united military front by China and Pakistan becoming a formidable force to reckon with. And hence it spends too much of resources on military equipment. However, New Delhi hopes to use it Russian connection to offset any danger to Indian security arising out of China.

Since Indo-Russian ties are strong, time tested and firm, they can only grow further.

Fortum said Wednesday it is starting a wind farm project in Ulyanovsk, Russia with a total capacity of 35 MW. The value of the investment is approximately EUR 65 million.

The wind farm is expected to start production in 2017, serving the city of Ulyanovsk, which is located 680 km south-east of Moscow and has 620,000 residents.

The wind farm is included in the Renewable Projects Competitive Selection, administered by the Russian power market regulator. The goal of the government program is to increase renewable power generation in Russia by using Capacity Supply Agreement (CSA) mechanism. The generation capacity under CSA receives guaranteed payments for 15 years in order to ensure sufficient return on investment.

“Low-emission production has been a key part of Fortum’s strategy for a long time. One of our key targets globally is to increase investments in renewables, above all, hydro, solar and wind power, ” said Alexander Chuvaev, Executive Vice President for Fortum’s Russia segment.

“I am sorry that I am still somewhere a punching ball.” – Sepp Blatter, December 21, 2015

Banning the President of FIFA Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini, Vice-President and member of the Executive Committee of FIFA and President of UEFA from the football family is a bit like castration and merry mutilation after a self-congratulatory orgy. That is to say, if you are associated with FIFA, can any genuine cleansing be undertaken except from the outside?

This is the sheer desperate nature of FIFA’s latest acts of cleansing and ostracising. The apparatus has been vested with various powers, and attempts have been made to do some brushing in the face of enormous criticism – and, let’s face it, arrests – that have made doing something, anything perhaps, imperative. The result, as it has proven before, is inconsistent.

Platini is a clear target here, having been feted as Blatter’s successor. Having been a footballer’s footballer, he became the obvious target of opprobrium, having gotten first class tickets on FIFA’s gravy train bonanza.

The FIFA ethics committee, in finding the two guilty for breaches surrounding the CHF 2m “disloyal payment”, also claimed that Platini and Blatter had demonstrated “abusive execution” in their positions. That payment, authorised by Blatter, supposedly took place in 2011, and went to Platini from FIFA funds.

It had no legal basis in the original written agreement signed between both officials on August 25, 1999, which was a rather nice way of saying that it was not quite a bribe. In that sense, it fell within the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 1 of FIFA’s code of ethics. But Platini insists that the payment was salary for consultancy work he carried out at FIFA between 1998 and 2002 under a gentleman’s understanding with Blatter.

In the wording of the Ethics Committee, chaired by that least reliable of ethicists, Hans-Joachim Eckert, it was claimed that, “Neither in his written statement nor in his personal hearing was Mr Blatter able to demonstrate another legal basis for this payment. His assertion of an oral agreement was determined as not convincing and was rejected by the chamber.”

Platini received an eight year ban regarding all football related activities and a fine of CHF 80,000. Ditto Blatter, who remains unrepentant and, one might even say non-cognisant of his own behaviour. “Blatter,” observed Tracey Holmes, “cannot understand or accept how an organisation to which he has dedicated half his life and now runs can toss him aside.”

And what a time he has had. As Michael Powell would explain in The New York Times, “His professional life was magnificent: so many hours spent in grand hotels, eating grand meals and sipping grander wines, with an annual salary estimated as north of $6 million.” Then came those “Visigoths” in the form of financial investigators from the US and Switzerland to burst the bubble.

Blatter’s issues with the ethics committee are manifold. For one, he created the body as a front of modest, and disingenuous reform. Being his creature, he expected it to do his bidding, endorsing facets of conduct while occasionally ticking off the less severe elements within the organisation. “I want to talk about betrayal,” he told gathered members of the media in Zurich on Monday. “Today, first of all, I was very sad. But not anymore. Now I am fighting.”

Both have denied the claims made against them, and will appeal the rulings, with Platini explicit about taking his matter to the FIFA Appeals Committee and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Even now, he still entertains the notion that he might nab the FIFA presidency in the special election scheduled to take place on February 26. Given that the appeal is unlikely to be resolved before that date, his chances are slim.

UEFA has also shown caution in throwing in its lot against Platini. There is honour amongst thieves after all and a vast gulf between football governance and the players on the field. “Naturally, UEFA is extremely disappointed with this decision, which nevertheless is subject to appeal. Once again, UEFA supports Michel Platini’s right to a due process and the opportunity to clear his name.”

The exercise by the ethics committee is a delightfully contorted way on FIFA’s part of saying that the duo went too far in executing the remit of their positions. As the French statesman Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord warned: Above all, not too much zeal. Such matters do not merely apply to the making of war.

Punishments being meted out by FIFA’s otherwise inactive and far from independent ethics committee have tended to be of a minor sort. But these actions suggest the heavy hand of the US Justice Department and associated agencies. The disease that is FIFA, however, remains. The body continues to decay, and fresh blood remains a distant reality.

By Denis Dzidic

Intelligence sources believe some of the 11 men arrested on Tuesday in Bosnia’s Federation entity were planning a terror attack on or around New Year’s Eve.

Marina Zovic, the spokesperson of the Bosnian Federation police, which conducted the raid, said that the 11 men were arrested for connections to terrorism and terrorist groups.

“They are suspected of inciting and preparing a criminal act as well as enlisting people to go fight abroad,” Zovic said.

The names of the suspects have not been revealed officially but sources in the Bosnian prosecution – which ordered the arrest – named them as Kemal Muric, Adis Kesan, Elvir Muratovic, Elvir Masic, Admir Ahmetovic, Semir Salkovic, Zulfo Alajbegovic, Bilal Dervisic, Edin Tabakovic, Darko Peco and Nermin Cuprija.

Bosnian prosecution spokesperson Boris Grubesic told BIRN that the police will hand the men to prosecutors on Wednesday who will question the suspects and decide whether to file a custody motion by Thursday.

The prosecution said that around 15 persons were targeted in total and, along with the arrests of 11 men, several houses and two “places of religious gatherings of radical persons” were searched.

“During the raids we found certain evidence that indicates connections to ISIS structures,” Grubesic said.

He added that part of the raid was conducted in Rajlovac, the suburb of Sarajevo where a man shot dead two soldiers a month ago.

On November 18, Enes Omeragic, 32, killed the soldiers near a betting shop in Rajlovac before committing suicide.

The attack was called a terrorist act although no connection between Omeragic and terrorist networks operating in Bosnia has been established.

Bosnian Security expert Vlado Azinovic said that the latest raid was clearly “a preventive” act.

“The police and prosecution had information that at least some of the suspects could do ‘something concrete’ by the end of the year, considering that people from this ideological circle usually object to celebrations of New Year, so there were indications that they might be involved in planning something at a celebration where there could be a big group of people”, he said.

Bosnian media also quoted unnamed sources in the intelligence services as claiming that the arrested men were planning an attack on New Year’s Day.

The prosecution also said the raid was the result of work of just one prosecutor working on terrorism cases, and that, after eight new prosecutors start working in January, the “work will become much faster and efficient.

“The new prosecutors will help coordinate the work and coordination of police agencies. In many cases, the activities involve a large number of suspects who are connected to terrorist activities and radicalization and organizing the travel of Bosnian citizens to fight in Syria or Iraq,” Grubesic explained.

The prosecution had been warning for months that it lacks the manpower to handle terrorism cases properly, which is why the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council named eight new prosecutors to work on these investigations.

Following the general elections held on Sunday, 20 December, the acting Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, held a meeting with Pedro Sánchez, the General Secretary of the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party) at Moncloa Palace.

Mariano Rajoy initiated the round of contacts he will hold with other leaders of political parties that obtained parliamentary representation in the latest general elections by meeting with Pedro Sánchez.

Next Monday, he will receive the President of Ciudadanos, Albert Rivera, and the General Secretary of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias.