Over a million irregular migrants and refugees arrived in Europe in 2015, mostly from Syria, Africa and South Asia, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Through the weekend, IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix – Flow Monitoring System counted 999,745 irregular arrivals across the Mediterranean, including migrants journeying by both land and sea to Greece, as well as to Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Malta and Cyprus.

With arrivals of 4,141 migrants or refugees landing in Greece on Monday, IOM reports total arrivals to Europe at roughly 1,005,504, with just 3% coming by land.

The total is the highest migration flow since World War II, IOM said.

By Umar Shah

These days the 128-year-old Holy Family Catholic Church of Srinagar in northern Jammu and Kashmir state is bustling with activity. The sounds of hymns and laughter are common as children gather for Christmas carols.

The parish was closed last Christmas, after devastating floods hit the state in September 2014, killing over 300 people, and causing extensive damage to the church.

Choirs comprising eight to 10 children have been practicing before Christmas and are now visiting homes for singing carols.

Maryam Shammi, a parishioner and choir member, said it excites her to invite Muslim friends for Christmas celebrations. She says it’s also exciting to invite them to her home for Christmas lunch, an event her family was forced to skip last year due to floods.

“This year, I will invite all my friends and we will spend Christmas together,” she told ucanews.com.

There are just 650 Christians living in India’s only Muslim-majority state. As the Christian community is least talked about and remains generally away from the public gaze, Christmas celebrations present a good opportunity to practice interreligious harmony.

Muslim neighbors typically participate in Christmas celebrations, exchanging gifts and greetings.

Lila Richard, an 82-year-old parishioner and a retired teacher who taught at a Christian missionary school in Srinagar, said Christians and Muslims have been living in harmony for decades in the Kashmir Valley.

“As far as I can tell you, we haven’t faced danger of any sort since Christians have never been involved in any upheavals that have engulfed the region over the past two decades,” she said.

When the onset of seperatism came in Kashmir in 1988, violent incidents became the order of the day. Various insurgent groups have fought the Indian army.

Some want the state to become part of neighboring Pakistan, others want full independence from India.

With the emergence of the armed rebellion in Kashmir, there were few radicalized militant groups who pitched for the establishment of a caliphate in the region. They banned cinemas, concerts, and cultural shows in Kashmir — declaring such practices as “un-Islamic.”

Such events not only changed Kashmir’s political discourse, but also made minority communities apprehensive about being targeted in the name of religion.

But, unlike, the local Hindu community, which at the onset of the armed insurgency fled the valley in droves, Christians remained along with their families.

Comprising about 50 families, the community remained scattered across the region, successfully avoiding being targeted during the turbulent era.

As life gradually returns to normal in this restive state, religious harmony is taking root with the new generation.

Father Roy Mathew said education has helped teach people the need to respect each religion and their beliefs.

“There are Muslims who greet us and we see local parishioners inviting their Muslims neighbors to take part in Christmas celebrations here,” Father Mathew told ucanews.com.

For 13-year-old Aryan Disilva, Christmas means enjoying pastries and cakes with his Muslim friends.

“We spend the entire day together and my friends also accompany me to the church,”Aryan said.

The young boy sees no difference between Eid and Christmas in terms of festivity. “Both these festivals bring Christians and Muslims together. No religion permits violence and we must love humanity above all,” Aryan told ucanews.com.

Waheed Gulzar, a local Muslim studying at Kashmir University, said he he looks forward to participating in Christmas celebrations with his Christian friend.

“We both spend the festivals of Eid and Christmas together. Our families always invite each other to come over,” Gulzar told ucanews.com.

“As far as the people here are concerned, there are no rifts between native Muslims and Christians in Kashmir,” he said.

Javaid Ahmad, a research scholar of Islamic Studies, said that in Kashmir’s history, there is not even a single instance where Muslims have expressed any ill will toward Christians.

“People here are aware that Christianity and Islam espouse the concept of egalitarianism, socio-economic fairness, as well as the basic guidelines of piety and moral uprightness,” he said.

Ahmad noted that this year presents a unique scene of religious harmony as on Dec. 24, Muslims celebrate the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, followed by the observance of the birth of Jesus.

Government policies must address a declining potential support ratio, workers to retirees, to promote economic and social well-being.

By Joseph Chamie*

As the world population ages and economies slow, get ready to hear another acronym – PSR. The Potential Support Ratio, or the ratio of the working-age population, 15 to 64, per one person 65 and older, may reveal more about the overall health of an economy than the gross domestic product, unemployment rate or other common indicators. This demographic ratio may turn out to be far more consequential for decision-making, resource allocations and societal wellbeing than other commonly utilized economic indicators. A lower PSR may signal economic stress with more elderly depending on fewer young workers to keep the economy humming.

The PSR has weighty implications for governments and businesses concerning the labor force, taxation, education, housing, production and consumption, retirement, pensions and health services. The unprecedented shift towards a larger proportion of older persons and concomitant declines in workers is gradually and inexorably necessitating redesign of national economies.

In 1950 when world population was much younger, with a median age of 23, the global potential support ratio was about 12 people of working age per one person aged 65 years or older. Today, the world PSR has declined to eight and by the year 2050 is projected to decline to four. Although the ratios for individual countries show considerable diversity, the overall trend is both unmistakable and striking: fewer people of working age per elderly person than in the past.

For the older industrialized countries the current PSRs are typically less than six, with Japan as low as two. By 2050 the PSRs will be substantially lower. In countries such as Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea, PSRs are expected to fall to about 1.5 working-age people per each elderly person.

In contrast, current PSRs for the less developed countries including India, Iran and Nigeria are generally well above 10. By midcentury, however, most of those countries will also confront aging populations, with PSRs falling to less than five for countries like India, Turkey and Iran. The notable exceptions to that trend are in Sub-Saharan Africa. The PSRs of many African countries in 2050 are expected to be lower than today’s levels, but still high with PSRs anticipated at 17 for Angola, 16 for Uganda and 15 for Nigeria.

Aging world: Countries anticipate fewer workers per each retired individual by 2050 (Source: UN Population Division; photo, Reuters)

The drops in PSRs are the result of significant declines in fertility and mortality and impressive gains in human longevity. Over the past 50 years the world’s average birthrate declined from 5 to 2.5 births per woman with more than 80 countries, nearly half the world’s population, experiencing fertility rates below the replacement level. Also global life expectancy at birth has increased from 47 years in 1950 to 71 today, with growing numbers of the elderly becoming centenarians.

Together, the remarkable demographic transition from high to low birth and death rates have dramatically changed the world’s age structure by notably increasing the proportions of elderly and decreasing proportions at younger ages. The age structure changes are most evident in more developed countries, where in 2015, for the first time, the proportion of elderly aged 65 years and older surpassed the number of children aged 0 to 14 years.

The countries furthest along in the population aging process are Japan, Italy and Germany. With decades of low fertility rates closer to one child rather than two children per woman and increasing longevity, the proportions of elderly in those countries exceed 20 percent. One-third of their populations are projected to be elderly by midcentury. At the same time, the proportions in the working ages of 15 to 64 years in those three countries, about 70 percent during the 1990s, are expected to be close to 50 percent by 2050.

More than half of the world’s countries and nearly all in the more developed regions consider population aging to be a major concern. Many have taken steps aimed at stemming the decline in the working-age population. Some governments, such as Australia, Canada and Germany, have increased immigration levels to maintain the size of their labor force.

In contrast, other countries such as Denmark, Iran, Japan, Russia and South Korea are reluctant to accept more immigrants and attempt to raise low birthrates closer to the replacement level of two births per woman. Japan’s government, for example, actively seeks bold proposals to raise its fertility rate to stem a slide in its labor force and fund retirement costs. The most recent addition to this latter group of countries is the world’s largest population, China. The Chinese government has announced that it will change its controversial one-child policy to a two-child policy per couple to balance population development and address the challenges of an aging population.

Due to unrelenting demographic pressures of the increasing elderly population with the relative decline of workers paying taxes, growing numbers of governments must adjust budgetary allocations. While some political leaders advocate less spending on domestic programs for the elderly, accompanied by tax cuts, perhaps the most controversial economic reform proposal is to recalibrate defense spending to meet increased demands for domestic services, support and care for growing proportions of elderly.

Avoiding controversial budgetary reforms, some governments reduce expenditures and entitlements for the elderly, shifting more costs for support, care giving and health services to the old and their families. More than half of all countries and 80 percent of the more developed countries have adopted changes during the past five years to increase the statutory retirement age or reform pension systems, including reductions in benefits and introducing fully funded schemes.

Raising the statutory retirement age simultaneously increases the working age population and reduces the elderly population. Raising the age threshold for the elderly from 65 to 70 years, for example, increases the global PSR from 8 to 13 people of working age per one elderly person – roughly the 1950 level.

Young at 60? Nations must lift thresholds for entry into retirement if they want to maintain their 2015 ratios of workers per each elderly individual (Calculations by Joseph Chamie, based on UN Population Division data; photo, Reuters)

Similarly, to maintain current PSR levels into the future, countries must lift the threshold for the elderly population. To preserve the current global PSR of eight to midcentury, for instance, the threshold age for beginning old age would need to be 73 years. For some countries, however, even higher age thresholds for the elderly would be required to maintain current PSRs through midcentury, such as 80 years for South Korea and 79 for China.

Admittedly, the PSR is a relatively crude measure to reflect the momentous changes in relative numbers of workers and retirees. Clearly, not everyone among the elderly is retired, and not everyone of working age is employed. Also, the traditional threshold age of 65 for the elderly may be viewed as arbitrary, especially with varying life expectancies among countries. However, the simplicity of the PSR is also its major strength as it clearly reflects fundamental changes occurring in population age structures, thus permitting comparisons across countries and time periods with varying employment and retirement circumstances.

The 21st century will be one of unprecedented population aging. Countries, especially in more developed regions, are experiencing unprecedented aging population structures. Effectively handling the increasing numbers of elderly and the simultaneous declines in tax-paying workers present unprecedented challenges for virtually every sector of society.

Above all, perhaps, population aging raises critical questions about the viability of pension systems and health services for the elderly. As is often the case when confronting slow-moving, yet momentous demographic trends, some governments defer addressing the consequences to others in the distant future. Long postponements, however, increase the difficulty and costs of implementing policy steps necessitated by population aging.

*Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division.

By Mohamed Elfaki*

There are conflicting opinions among Muslims and non-Muslims regarding whether to link to “Islam” these gruesome terror acts committed in its name by individuals and groups claiming to be “Muslim” jihadists. For whenever and wherever such acts are committed (suicide bombing, beheading, stoning to death, etc.), while one group immediately points the finger at “Islam” and considers the acts a further proof that “Islam” is essentially a ‘terror-embracing’ religion[1] ; the other group, on the other hand, often apologetically, condemns these acts, calls them non-Islamic and maintains that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ hijacked by terror groups whose ultimate goal, as some conspiracy theorists believe, is to distort the “true” image of Islam.

As a matter of fact, debate, or rather conflict, among Muslims in particular over what is “Islamic” and what is not, is not a recent innovation nor it is limited to the current discussions on terror acts in name of Islam. Such dispute covers almost all aspects of life in the so-called Muslim World including such issues as governance, democracy, human rights, woman’s dress, etc. Moreover, although it takes different forms and shapes, sometimes such dispute becomes deadly and that one Muslim group or the other often becomes its main victim.

Apparently, many Muslims do not digest or approve the coexistence of different or conflicting understandings and interpretations of Islam in the same social or political milieu. For endorsement of such situation could be interpreted as ‘pollution’ or even blasphemy which would ultimately lead to Kufr (disbelieve). Therefore, every group believes and makes sure that its sole interpretation and understanding of Islam constitutes “true Islam”. Consequently, the other understandings and interpretations are often discredited and their bearers rendered outcast. The historical animosity between Shi’i and Sunni Muslims could be taken as a good example illustrating this situation.

This sharp dividing line between being a ‘true Muslim’ or not which is exclusively based on one’s sole understanding and interpretation of Islam, leaves little, if any, room for reconciliation of the various definitions given to Islam (or what is Islamic, for that matter) by different Muslim groups and sects. Moreover, one is also inclined to think that lack of ‘quasi-centralized’ body (such as the Pope or the Vatican) whose interpretation and understanding of the creed could be universally acceptable to the bulk of Muslims, also makes such reconciliation impossible.

This heated debate on whether some situations could be identified as “Islamic” or not, leads directly to the one million dollar ontological question of what is Islam, and whether it is possible to identify some situations or state of affairs as Islamic or not without excluding certain understandings and interpretations of the creed. And finally, what should we learn from the various competing/contradictory understandings/versions of Islam?

There are definitely no easy or final answers to the above questions. For, it is our contention that any attempt made with the aim of reaching a definition of what “Islam” is, or drawing a universally accepted line between what to be considered “Islamic” and ‘what is not’, without performing some sort of exclusion of this understanding/interpretation or that, is practically and theoretically impossible. For it is variation in Muslims’ patterns of livings, interests, historical, cultural, economic and political conditions and experiences which has necessitated the emergence of these different forms and versions of Islam.

Under these complex conditions which make harder the possibility of reaching a universal definition of what “Islam” is or what to be considered “Islamic”, we suggest that only by rendering “Islam” as an ‘empty signifier’ then would we be in a better position to make a lot of sense of what “Islam” is and why and how it has been implicated in the actions of its followers.

We learn from semiotics that meaning is arbitrary, historical, and that it is politically and socially constructed. Moreover, we also learn that meaning is attained though processes of differing and deferring and not according to any intrinsic value(s) embedded into things and situations. If we accept this thesis, then we would be left with nothing, as far as production of meaning is concerned, but a set of floating signifiers_ empty signifiers which simultaneously signify everything and nothing: call it signification under erasure!

Such designation renders the signifier an open horizon prone and ready to be impregnated by unlimited possibilities (meanings, for that matter). Such is the beauty (you are also free to call it promiscuous, instead) nature of the empty signifier. The terrifying aspect – or should we call it curse – of such beauty, however, is that once it is accepted, it immediately dissolves the solid ground on which we construct our understanding of the world, leaving us swimming in the eternally floating orbit of the signifiers! The emptiness of a signifier is what renders it an unlimited possibility. A possibility capable of housing all kind of interpretations and understandings.

As an empty signifier, Islam is deaf, mute and immobile. It does not have the will nor the reason to go to people and tell them to be violent, aggressive, full of hatred, etc., neither does it urge them to be peaceful, kind, lovely, etc. On the contrary, it is people who migrate to the kingdom of the empty signifier (Islam, in our example) and populate it with what they have and desire at that particular moment in the history of their struggle for production and acquisition of meaning/power/interest. Therefore, the idea of attributing to Islam everything a Muslim does, harbours a major fallacy which simply presumes that Muslims are 100% devoted to ‘their creed’ and that whatever they do is necessary guided by what ‘their religion’ sanctions. With the exception of prayers, fasting during Ramadhan, Pilgrimage to Mecca which are noticeably performed by the bulk of those identified with Islam, Muslims, like other people everywhere, attend to their worldly things largely motivated by the mundane logics of desire and power.

How, therefore, could a certain group of people succeed in painting (impregnating) the signifier with blood of beheaded innocent people, suicide bombing victims, etc. who would go about their businesses in places which would themselves turn to be the wrong places at the wrong time? Certainly, actions of these groups of terrorists are hardly dictated by our dead, deaf and mute signifier but rather the driving force(s) for their actions should be sought somewhere else, at a time before migration of these terrorists to the kingdom of the empty signifier!

In what follows this article will attempt to touch upon some of the areas which could be considered constituting part of the big picture of how and why Jihadists appeal to “Islam” in their struggle for the production of meanings and seek legitimacy for their actions!

Violence, domestic or political, and intolerance for the ‘other’, have always been dominant themes of life in most of the countries dwelled by ‘majority of Muslims’. At the domestic level, the patriarchal values of male domination have been carefully drafted, preserved and codified as Islamic values. Accordingly, the male member of a family is deferred to and bestowed with indisputable powers over the female, who is viewed as and is expected to represent the ultimate honor of the family, tribe and the nation. Under these circumstances, ‘violation’ or even just tampering with woman’s honor (no matter through real or imaginary extra-marital involvement) regardless of whether such violation occurs by her consent or she is forced into it (through rape, for example), is something that she always carries responsible for; and the punishment, in most of the cases, is vital: honor killing!

The rules of codes of conduct in the family are predominantly introduced and guarded by the male. These include everything from what to eat, dress, who to befriend and hang out with and even when to go to bed. Violation of these rules always results in one or other form of punishment ranging from verbal insult to slapping and, in extreme cases, even death. Punishment for challenging or questioning male authority in the family is even more traumatic, since such acts would be interpreted as attempts to damage the male’s ego and honor!

Domestic structures of power, violence and intolerance are inherited and maintained at the wider social and national levels. Struggle for power/domination, which, as a virtue, is not something to be shared peacefully. Viewed and acted upon as a divine entitlement, power is acquired through violent approaches ( e.g. coup or assassination of rivals) and kept for life by all means, including physical elimination and exclusion of those dreamers who might dare to think of challenging the absolute right to power of the chosen one(s). Such was the case in Libya’s Gadhafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein who had ruled over their people with iron fists for decades. Assad of Syria and Bashir of Sudan are struggling, as we speak now, to keep their grip on absolute power even though their countries are slipping away bit by bit over the days and nights!

Nevertheless, as expected, control of political power by these despots goes hand in hand with ultimate control of production of meanings and knowledge. Under the reign of dictatorship and totalitarianism, production of meanings and knowledge is carefully managed and maintained so that it serves the ‘absolute’ interests of the ruling group: family or tribe. In a society where only ‘Islamic’ signs are made available to the masses, and where all other signs are controlled and monopolized by state, the former become the only means through which people make sense of their existence; temporally and religiously. Moreover, the fall of the tyrant regimes has created remarkable vacuums in almost all aspects of life of people in these societies. The Islamic signs have proven that they are the only ones available and ready to fill in these vacuums. But wait a minute! What about the liberal and leftist projects of change? Why have the signs of their narratives failed to become the alternative?

For one, the liberals and the leftists have been subjected to systemic oppression, harassment, persecution and exclusion, ironically, from self-proclaimed secular regimes, most of which have been flirted and embraced by Western democratic and secular regimes for very long periods of time. Activities of the liberal and the leftist elements have often been banned and their members and leaders have been subjected to lengthy periods of detention and sometimes executions.

On the other hand, the liberal and leftist projects of change have completely failed to reach out for the masses and mobilize them in support of their perspectives of change and development. This failure could be attributed to many factors. First, these projects have been drafted and presented in language if anything but a mystery to the masses. They have totally ignored the social and cultural signs and symbols of the everyday language of the masses, in particular those of “Islam”, which act as a grand signifier and with which the majority of the population in the so-called Islamic world do identify. Second, eager to ‘party’ rather than dedicating themselves fully to the hectic project of change, which requires rigorous understanding of the nuances of the fabric of their cultural milieu, the leftists and liberals have completely ignored the far-reaching impact of religious signs in the lives of the very people whom they have promised prosperity. Instead, the leftist and liberal projects have adopted a more superficial and rootless method in presenting their agendas for change.

Abandoned by the leftist and liberal elements, the empty signifier has become a fertile sanctuary always available for the mediocre, the destitute, the angry, the oppressed, etc., who would migrate to it and take full advantage of its signs for killings, revenge, justice, rewards, etc.

Going after an abstract and an empty signifier such as “Islam” is not going to help in solving any of the problems associated to it. On the contrary, such a move might in fact exacerbate the situation by uniting many people who do not have anything in common except their identification with an empty signifier. This would, in turn, feed the terrorists who are looking for such an opportunity to carry on with their destructive project.

We need to address the root causes of violence and why religion has become an easy vehicle to transport it all over the place. Democracy and tolerance should be encouraged and taught at our schools. The liberal and leftist projects of change should find ways and means to sincerely challenge and incorporate the religious signs within their discourses for change in ways that these signs serve to promote values of tolerance an appreciation of differences. We do not see any other way around!

* Mohamed Elfaki is a Ph.D. candidate at McMaster University, Department of Anthropology.

END NOTE
[1] We can also add to this group those who actually cite certain verses from Qura’n encouraging the “believers” to wage war against and fight the infidels and present these verses as indisputable evidence of the intolerable nature of Islam.

By Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi for Syria Comment

The Syrian civil war features multiple militias of Palestinian Syrians fighting on the side of the Assad regime. The most well-known of these is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, headed by Ahmad Jibril. Previously on this site I have profiled two other pro-regime Palestinian Syrian militias: Liwa al-Quds (operating primarily in the Aleppo area) and Jaysh al-Tahrir al-Falastini, which is active mainly in the Damascus area. Quwat al-Jalil is another formation that has more recently come to attention. By way of introduction, here is an article from late May 2015 about the militia in the outlet Bousla:

“More than 4800 fighters have finished their intensive military training, and have moved from theoretical military studies to operation on the battleground in Qalamoun, hand-in-hand with the Syrian army and Hezbollah: they have participated in the liberation of al-Musa hill and al-Talaja, and the assault on the two hills of al-Balukusat and al-Khashi’a. ‘We are a civilian resistance auxiliary force working with the army, and we emphasize its operation,’ thus characterizes Fadi [al]-Mellah, leader of Quwat al-Jalil, his brothers in arms. He adds: ‘We are Syrians by belonging, Palestinians by nationality and resisters by ideology and faith. Quwat al-Jalil.’

Do you remember the crossing to Majdal Shams within the operation of the return? From here was the basis for the launch, for the movement was established on 15 May 2011, and by rule of necessity, there came the establishment of Quwat al-Jalil so as to be the military wing for Harakat Shabab al-Oudat al-Falastinia [Movement of the Youth of the Palestinian Return], and by rule of history and geographical and ideological necessity, it was inevitable that there would be participation in the battles against the enemies of Syria at the side of the Syrian army to fulfil the path to al-Jalil in occupied Palestine.

[al]-Mellah says to Bousla site: ‘When the eternal president Hafez al-Assad decided to send battalions from the Syrian army to protect the resistance in Black September in Jordan, the resistance was one. And today we are one blood, and we do not consider our existence in the ranks of the Syrian Arab Army as a fine repayment to Syria: rather, our belonging to it is an obligation defend it. Thus the majority of members and cadres of the movement are from the youth of Syria at a proportion exceeding 50%. And this reinforces the belonging of the Syrian people to the Palestinian cause and the resistance state.’

He adds: ‘Our resistance also extends within the lands of the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance, and we had the honour of launching the first rocket inside Gaza, named “Golan and Return,” in 2012. And we are honoured that our arms are the arms of the Syrian army, for were it not for the Syrian state, there would be no basis for the Palestinian resistance…Israel is trying to destroy Lebanon and Palestine whereas Syria protects and builds them.’”

Quwat al-Jalil graphic.

The activism of Quwat al-Jalil’s political wing, at least in the online realm, can be traced further back. As the article translated above makes clear, Harakat Shabab al-Oudat al-Falastinia was established back in 2011 as the protests in Syria was kicking off. In a manifesto released on 3 September 2011, published from Damascus and entitled “Statement of the pledge of sacrifice for the blood of the martyrs,” the movement outlined its ideology in 17 clauses, typical of traditional Palestinian and Arab nationalist discourse, rejecting notions of any compromise with Israel. For example, the first clause affirms: “Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people and is an inseparable part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab Ummah.” The fifth clause asserts that “the Palestinians are among the Arab citizens who had a permanent establishment in Palestine until 1947. Regardless of whether one was expelled from it or remained in it, everyone also who was born to a Palestinian father after this date inside or outside Palestine is a Palestinian.” The ninth clause affirms that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine and it is therefore a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab people emphasizes its absolute resolution and firm determination to pursue armed struggle and move forward towards the popular armed revolution to liberate their homeland and return to it.”

Notably, the manifesto makes no mention of the unrest in Syria at the time, probably because the armed insurgency against the regime was still only in the nascent stages at this point. However, moving into 2012, Fadi al-Mellah began to speak openly of the events in Syria, characterizing the rebellion in an interview with the National Union of Syrian Students as “the diabolical conspiracy to which Syria is being exposed,” while emphasizing that “the path of our return [to Palestine] begins from Damascus of the Umayyads.” He also claimed that the supposed conspiracy against Syria had “begun to decline before the steadfastness of the Syrian Arab people” while affirming ostensible support for the right of Syrians to choose to embark on a reform project (i.e. some kind of limited reform within the regime’s framework), giving rise to a “renewed Syria” that would “remain a fortress for the resistance and a rock to defend the Arab rights and causes.” It was also in 2012 that Quwat al-Jalil began military operations on the ground, according to Fadi al-Mellah, who spoke to this author in a brief interview.

Fadi al-Mellah

Fadi al-Mellah also asserted to this author that his militia has operated throughout all of Syria. From the information it has openly publicised this year, Quwat al-Jalil claims to have operated on a variety of specific military fronts. On 2 July 2015, it was announced that Fadi al-Mellah had appointed one Fadi Sheibani as the official responsible for organization, “in guiding the resisters to support the coastal front [Latakia province], and mid-northern front [Hama-Idlib].” The post added that “today by God’s help resisters have been sent to the hot zones in Idlib, Jisr al-Shughur, Jurin [in the Sahl al-Ghab], the coastal areas, and Jazal in the Palmyra countryside.” In a later post on 16 September 2015, the group claimed participation in capturing the Abu Zayd hill overlooking the suburb of Dahiyet al-Assad in the Damascus area. On 16 November 2015, Fadi al-Mellah reportedly inspected the ranks of fighters in the Douma farms in Damascus countryside.

In total, Fadi al-Mellah claimed to this author that his group has some 53 ‘martyrs’ (fallen fighters). Of this number, some have been openly publicised in announcements. For example, on 23 October 2015, the group announced the death of one Muhannad Abd al-Aziz in Tel al-Karum in Quneitra province. On 11 November 2015, Quwat al-Jalil said that one Abd al-Majeed Mohsen al-Muhammad was killed in Deir az-Zor military airport. Further, on 23 September 2015, Quwat al-Jalil presented a list of 11 ‘martyrs’ who had fought in “the eastern region of the Syrian Arab Republic” (most likely referring to Deir az-Zor province). All these ‘martyrs’ apparently have the army rank of al-mulazim sharf, perhaps pointing to some overlap with the Syrian army.

The case of Quwat al-Jalil is another instance of the wider trend of militiafication of forces on the regime side, adding to the large mix of actors with a claim to influence on the Syrian landscape.

ASEAN’s move towards a post-2015 community presents an opportune moment to relook at issues surrounding women and their role in this envisioned integration. This is especially so in addressing women’s roles, in a milieu of change and reformation, in bringing about and maintaining peace in the region.

By Tamara Nair*

The United Nations Security Council Resolution, UNSCR 1325, adopted in 2000, is based on four pillars – prevention of violence against women; protection from sexual and gender-based violence; participation of women in all levels of decision-making; and women’s effective and sustained involvement in relief and recovery. There are concerns that the envisioned regional economic integration will perpetuate a gendered ASEAN, which prioritises other interests over gender justice.

These concerns are not unjustified given that a World Health Organisation study reveals that 37 per cent of women in Southeast Asia (similar to some African and eastern Mediterranean states) experience some form of gender-based violence during their lifetime. Despite acknowledgement of issues of gender inequality and acting upon these through legislation, policies and programmes, ASEAN still has quite a way to go before gender-bias can be abolished in conflict and disaster relief and rehabilitation.

Women, peace and security (WPS) in ASEAN

ASEAN has made a number of commitments to address sexual violence against women. However, none have dealt specifically with the impact of armed conflict on women. Neither have any of these commitments aimed to increase women’s participation in political or security discussions that could potentially lead to conflict prevention. As a regional body, ASEAN has done much to promote and protect and rights of women through various mechanisms.

The ASEAN Ministerial Meetings on Women and the ASEAN Declaration of the Advancement of Women encourage ASEAN bodies and member states to integrate gender-mainstreaming in its activities. The Declaration of Elimination of Violence against Women in the ASEAN Region takes a holistic approach to eliminating violence against women including providing services to survivors of violence, understanding the nature and cause of violence, and the changing attitudes and behaviours that promote violence against women.

The ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) can be said to be the closest reflection of UNSCR 1325. Unfortunately, none of its terms specifically address issues of women, peace and security. According to some studies, Southeast Asia is ‘notably under represented’ as far as national or regional actions plans that engage the Security Council Resolution is concerned.

The good news is that in 2013, eight out of ten member states – Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam – have endorsed the Declaration of Commitment to end Sexual Violence in Conflict. This particular commitment from ASEAN states is noteworthy because it paves the way for increasing national (and regional) attempts to address the prevention, protection and participation pillars of UNSCR 1325.

‘Gaps…and successes’

There is failure to engage women in peace and security issues across the socio-cultural, political-security and economic pillars upon which the ASEAN Community vision rests. This is a huge ‘gap’ in regional governance that needs to be addressed urgently. Women and girls in the region are still vulnerable to various human insecurities. The protection of women’s (human) rights have essentially been confined to the socio-cultural areas and this is addressed separately from political and security concerns.

This is ironic considering women suffer disproportionately in the event of political upheavals and conflicts. In addition, a number of ASEAN member states are post-conflict societies undergoing rebuilding and almost none have any reference to women playing a key role in the process. The need to understand the impact of armed conflict on women and girls, the need to have in place institutional arrangements to guarantee their protection, and the need to invoke their full participation in the peace process, should be core concerns for these states.

In addressing the WPS agenda, the Philippines is paving the way for women’s participation in peace building and peacekeeping through promoting their role as negotiators, mediators, peacekeepers as well as relief workers. They are in fact the only country in Southeast Asia to have a 1325 National Action Plan. Civil society organisations have drawn attention to the impact of the Mindanao conflict on women’s lives and they have worked to ensure that the peace process reflects the perspectives of women who were affected.

A distinct regional action plan

Ideas of conflict, violence, peace, security and justice have evolved since the inception of UNSCR 1325 15 years ago. Conflict no longer just refers to ‘armed conflict’ but now describes any form of disruption to human lives. Violence now needs to be recognized in ALL its forms, including disparities between rich and poor, and inequalities between man and woman.

Peace is not only an absence of conflict but an absence from want, and security should include all aspects of security as any form of human insecurity is a form of ‘violence’. Justice is no longer about prosecuting perpetrators but also fighting against systems that allow such ‘violence’ to take place and recognising women’s rights as human rights.

What ASEAN should work towards is establishing a regional action plan that is unique in the way it embraces the WPS agenda. It needs a plan that recognises all forms of ‘violence’ against women including economic insecurities and disadvantages in the labour force. The plan needs to recognise the role of women in areas of conflict prevention both in governance and in relief and recovery. It needs to identify women other than just being part of the ‘vulnerable populations’ and see women as resilient and resourceful individuals.

And given that the region is one of the most disaster-prone, this plan will need to recognise natural disasters as a form of ‘conflict’. Women rapidly form informal social networks that allow for the efficient procurement of food, fuel and makeshift shelters. During and after crises, women are forthcoming in their requests for help whereas men are unlikely to do so. This resilience needs to be further enhanced by directing necessary resources their way.

The proposed regional plan should encourage humanitarian organisations to activate women as key personnel in various stages of mitigation and rehabilitation. It is only by such actions that ASEAN, as a regional community, can be one that addresses all inequalities and emerge as a just and more ‘humane’ institution.

*Tamara Nair is Research Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies in the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. This is based on a presentation at a joint event organised by the RSIS Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) Programme and the Swedish Embassy in Singapore to mark the 15th Anniversary of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

According to the Federal Statistical Office, one-third of children under the age of five in Germany come from immigrant families. Could technical assistants be used to help prepare immigrant children for school and teach them the new language? L2TOR, the new project financed by the European Union, is researching that very question.

The project will launch in January 2016 and will run for three years. One research group at the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) of Bielefeld University wants to provide tutoring systems with Tablet-PCs and robots that can assist in language learning. To do this, researchers are developing modules that recognize a child’s language abilities and motivation so that the robot can react individually to each child.

Computer scientists, educators, and linguists are working together on this project in a consortium of five universities and two companies. Plymouth University in Great Britain is coordinating the research. The abbreviation L2TOR (pronounced ‘el tutor’) stands for ‘Second Language Tutoring Using Social Robots.’

“We are investigating how interactive robots can be used to help teach children between the ages of 4 to 6 a second language,” said Professor Dr. Stefan Kopp, who heads the research group Social Cognitive Systems, which belongs to the Faculty of Technology and is part of CITEC. “We are working to provide children with the language abilities that they need for school.”

Kopp’s team is cooperating with day care centers from around the Bielefeld region, where researchers are testing how their robots perform as language tutors. The company Aldebaran from Paris is a project partner who is producing the humanoid robot Nao. Combined with a Tablet PC, Nao is designed to lead children through a language course.

“When it comes to teaching the basics of a language, a robot can also have a positive impact,” said Dr. Kirsten Bergmann, who works in Kopp’s research group. “It is important that the robot recognizes how the child being taught feels, and whether he or she is frustrated or confused, for example. We program the robot so that it can shape its interaction with the child so that he or she is being supported in the best way possible.”

While teaching, Nao pays attention to what the children say, along with their facial expressions and gestures, and helps when they do not understand. Course content covers vocabulary and simple grammatical structures. Researchers will test how Nao may be able to help children learn to form sentences. To do this, difficult types of words such as prepositions (i.e. spatial expressions like ‘in,’ ‘on,’ or ‘next to’) are also taught.

“Children could ultimately be prompted to tell the robot a short story based on pictures displayed on a Tablet,” said Kopp. “The individualized language support provided by the robot complements the existing resources available in day care centers. It lets us give immigrant children the chance to acquire their new language in a playful way. This also goes for German children first experiencing a foreign language, such as English.”

Bielefeld University, Plymouth University in the United Kingdom, Tilburg University and Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and Koç University in Turkey, along with industry partners Aldebaran Robotics in France and Qatar Belgium Modern Technologies (QBMT) in Belgium are cooperating on this project. While CITEC researchers are working with children in Germany, colleagues at the other partner universities are working on language tutoring for children in England, Turkey, and the Netherlands. The European Union is funding the project with a total of three million Euro, 355,000 Euro of which is allocated to Bielefeld.

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

The global shift of power center from the Atlantic to the Asia Pacific in the last decade was a monumental shift of power pregnant with newer strategic possibilities, but without displacing the primacy of the United States as the paramount superpower holding sway over both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

In this shift of the global power center the strategic focus in terms of lead strategic actors came to rest on China, India and Japan, overarched by the strategic predominance of the United States as the Asia Pacific’s non-resident power, but perceived by Asian lead powers as the nett provider of Asia Pacific security.

However, in this strategic template there is a glaring oddity in that while all three Asian powers—China, Japan and India— perceive the United States as the nett provider of security in the now enlarged area of Indo-Pacific Asia, their perceptions of the United States varies considerably. China views the United States as the net provider of security exclusively in terms of its fears of Japan’s military resurgence. However, Japan and India view the United States as a nett provider of security against the threatening rise of China and the pronounced China Threat.

Having laid out the contextual background of the Indo-Pacific security atmospherics, let us now revert to the main theme of the Indo-Pacific Asia balance of power. The term balance of power has many connotations, all of which concentrate on the requirements of balancing the rise of threatening power intent on disturbing the prevailing security and military balance of the region.

In Indo-Pacific Asia, the threatening power is decidedly China which has with its sudden switch from ‘soft power; strategies has shifted to ‘hard power’ strategies emboldened by its uninterrupted build-up of naval power to add maritime muscle to its burgeoning military power, making it a power to be reckoned with.

With China’s strategic intentions read as not benign, China by its provocative military stance and aggression in the South China Sea has reinforced the prevailing impression that China is fast emerging as the ‘revisionist power’ intent on upsetting or displacing the prevailing balance of power resting on the edifice of the US-based security architecture in the Asia Pacific which has lasted for nearly half a century.

Another notable feature that needs to be highlighted is that the United States architecture security template earlier crafted for containment of the Soviet Union stands very much in place now to cater for the emerging China Threat.

The United States, however, reluctant to acknowledge the China Threat, like India, has however, this security architecture in place. In view of the enlarged China Threat what one is now witnessing is the United States engaged in the crafting of enlarging its earlier balance of power template by forging substantive strategic partnership with India, a strategic cooperative relationship with Vietnam and Indonesia besides discarding its previous hang-ups on countries like Myanmar.

So in terms of Indo-Pacific Asia balance of power template one would witness in the coming years witness a further reinforcement of this trend and process. This is inevitable as China has shown no inclinations, much as the United States wished, that China should integrate into a rules-based international order.

China is aware that China itself has unleashed the process of balancing China’s threatening rise and its revisionist impulses. It is further reinforced in the last two to three years by the assertive pronouncements of the Chinese President. It also has to be added that the balance of power strategies against China would not only be by military containment of China but also complemented by economic containment of Chia, which is far more subtle and less visible.

Concluding one would like to observe that Indo-Pacific Asia would now be forced into adoption and siding with the balance of power strategies of the United States in a lead role. It would also force an Asian giant like India to shun its traditional dislike of balance of power policy approaches and accept it as inevitable.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili announced about resignation in a live televised statement on Wednesday evening.

In the five-minute address, Garibashvili, who held prime ministerial post since November 2013 after resignation of Bidzina Ivanishvili, spoke of “historic results” and significant reforms during his tenure, but did not give a specific reason behind the decision to step down.

“Holding an office – be it of interior minister or prime minister, and being in government in general has never been a goal in itself for me,” Garibashvili said. “For me this is a mean to serve my country.”

“We have young democracy therefore it is of huge importance what kind of example we will set for our children and future generations. Official posts are temporary, God and homeland are eternal. Therefore today I took a decision to leave the post of prime minister,” Garibashvili said.

Garibashvili, 33, who worked with Ivanishvili for eight years before going into politics together with Ivanishvili in late 2011, served as the Interior Minister for a year before becoming the PM in November, 2013.

The Georgian Dream ruling coalition has to name a new prime minister, who will then nominate cabinet members to face parliament’s confidence vote requiring support of at least 76 MPs.

Garibashvili will remain an acting prime minister before the new government is confirmed by the Parliament; other members of the current cabinet are also acting ministers.

The Georgian media first reported about Garibashvili’s intention to announce about resignation earlier on Wednesday; according to those same reports Giorgi Kvirikashvili, who was economy minister and now holds foreign minister’s post, is expected to be named as next PM by the ruling GD coalition.

“Each person has a possibility to make a free choice,” Garibashvili said in his televised address. “Every step of mine was stemming from the responsibility imposed by this choice – be it when I was making a decision about starting a family, choosing a career or going to politics, when we all got united for saving of the country under the leadership of Bidzina Ivanishvili,” Garibashvili said.

“Our struggle in 2012 was crowned with the victory of our people. I am really proud that I was honored to assume a huge responsibility before our country and nation, to continue together with our team the work launched for the welfare of our country,” he said.

“Peace and stability, legality and humaneness were established during my prime ministerial tenure. We returned freedom and dignity to our citizens. Due to large scale reforms and unprecedented governmental programs implemented by us, we laid a firm foundation for economic and social welfare.”

“We also achieved historical results – we signed the Association Agreement with the European Union and launched free trade; we also received consent on visa-free travel rules for our citizens that made our country’s integration into the European family irreversible.”

“Today, as never before, a real foundation is being laid for peaceful coexistence with our Abkhazian and Ossetian brothers with human-oriented and pragmatic policy, and with our European perspective,” Garibashvili’s said.

“We began working on restoration of our country’s historic function – Georgia has actively got involved in the international Silk Road project and [Georgia] is now genuinely becoming a link between Asia and Europe.”

“After Bidzina Ivanishvili took, I would say, an unprecedented step, and at the zenith of his popularity and influence, quit his post of [the PM in November 2013] upon his own decision, he set an example of how a politician should make useful deeds for the country through timely taking of office, as well as through timely departure from the office,” Garibashvili said.

“Now, when internal and external directions of our country have been strengthened, I want to wish success to our future Prime Minister,” he said without indicating who might be named as the next PM.

“First of all, I want to thank each citizen of our country, our dear people; I want to thank our devoted co-fighters for their cooperation and support, everyone,” he said and also thanked his wife and three sons.

“My dream was, is and will always be strong and united Georgia with economically strong Georgian people. Today I resign, but I remain a dedicated soldier of my motherland. God bless our motherland and our proud and strong Georgian nation,” Garibashvili said.

When the Georgian news agencies started reporting by around noon on Wednesday that Garibashvili was going to announce about resignation, many of those Georgian Dream lawmakers and government officials who were asked by journalists about those reports, were either responding that they were not aware or denying it as a rumor. A senior GD MP Gia Volski was probably the only one who although said that the PM’s resignation was not yet decided, but discussions were ongoing over the issue.

An opposition lawmaker from Free Democrats party, Zurab Abashidze, said that he had an impression that “no one, but few people within the ruling coalition, knew about Garibashvili’s intention to resign.” He said that keeping ruling majority members unaware of such an important decision was yet another indication of Ivanishvili’s “informal rule.”

A senior lawmaker from the opposition UNM party, Giorgi Gabashvili, said that “nothing is changing in principle” with the resignation of Garibashvili.

“I would call it reshuffle of puppets; Garibashvili has never been an independent figure and leader. He has always been a very energetic executor of Bidzina Ivanishvili’s orders… and other government members are Ivanishvili’s clerks,” MP Gabashvili told Imedi TV.

Some opposition politicians, as well as political commentators, have suggested that the cabinet reshuffle about ten months before the parliamentary elections is possibly made in response to declined public support for the GD ruling coalition.

November poll, commissioned by NDI, showed most of the voters undecided; GD’s support among likely voters stood at 18%, which is up by 4 percentage points since August, but 6 percentage points lower than in April, 2015. UNM opposition party had 12% support among likely voters, compared to 15% and 16% in August and April, respectively; Free Democrats – had 7% support, compared to 5% in August and April.

Malaysians are angry and deeply bothered by the recent issue of Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) organizing what was reported as an “anti-Christianization” conference.

There is nothing new about the need for such institutions to train students to fear themselves and non-Muslims and non-Malays especially. It is a natural program to instill fear as part of a culture to defend the existence of race-based ideology. It is part of an apartheid strategy of Malaysian education I have written about in many articles.

What is new is the question: how do we dismantle this system and work towards peaceful co-existence?

I do not think the Christians and Catholics in Malaysia appreciate being bullied endlessly. I do not think they want to be branded as “evil people trying to spread false and dangerous message threatening Islam”.

I do not think they need to be associated with the Crusade War a thousand over years ago, or even linked to the brutality of the Christian-imperialist army who were chanting “guns, guts, god, and glory” before annexing cultures and massacring the natives of Latin America, Africa, Asian, and even Northern America – so that the Crusaders carrying the order of the European monarchs can built churches while sucking the blood, sweat, and tears of the natives they enslave.

I don’t think the Christians and Catholics in Malaysia want to be known as inheritors and carriers of the sins of their fathers. I think they just want to live, work, and worship in peace and be ensured that their safety in an majority Malay Muslim country be guaranteed.

Why do institutions such as UiTM need to instill such a fear and to unnecessarily turn young and hopefully not-yet-Daesh/IS radicalised students into hating the Christians and Catholics? If Muslims in predominantly Christian nations such as the United States, Canada, and Australia can help protect the safety of Muslims from Christian extremists-wannabe-terrorists, why can’t Malaysia do similarly by not allowing conferences that promote hate to be fed to students?

Why not encourage education for peace and conflict resolution? Why not teach empathy through ongoing good dialogue amongst Malaysians of different faiths? Why warn them of the “dangers of Christianisation” and not expect some lunatic fundamentalist groups to take the warning one step further and translate it into violent action, sanctioned and legitimised by the authorities?

What education should look like

Haven’t we heard the word ‘Islamophobia’? Why create ‘Chistianophobia’ at a time when the world is bipolar, violent, and plagued with all kinds of phobias?

Let us come back to our senses. Here is my thought on what education should look like if we are to prevent racial and religious riots in future:

The education of today’s bumiputeras via the special privileges given to them in all aspects, from preschool to postgraduate – especially the education of Malay Muslims through the racially-based institutions linked to the ruling party – has one objective.

It is to produce more and more members of the Malay-Muslim-bumiputera privileged class who will ensure that the non-bumiputera-non-Muslims be kept outside the gate of equality, equal opportunity and meritocracy, even though they are the rightful citizens of this country whose parents and grandparents have laboured for this country so that the most privileged class of Malays and non-Malays can continue to be created to enslave the labour class of all races.

No need to have a complex understanding on Malaysia’s philosophy of education, national development, frameworks of class evolution, politics of curricular studies, interplay between race, religion, and ideology, or any other complex theories of neo-feudalism to understand this simple fact of education and social reproduction in Malaysia.

We need to turn the system upside down and renew prosperity of this country, based not on the advancement of this or that race, but the simple human logic that each and every one of us is a human being with dignity and an important part of Humanity.

UiTM was different back in the days, especially in the 70s and early 80s.

There is a vast difference in the way Malays were educated in the institution. It was a place to harness the creative energy and problem-solving gung-ho cognitive capabilities of students who had so much energy than just reading books only, so that they may further their studies and contribute to the development of the nation’s post-independence.

This is because the leadership knew what education and human liberation meant. Because the first prime minster was a firm, fair, and wise man. A good man. The best we have had.

However, beginning in the mid-80s till today it is looking like a place to engineer the development of totalitarianism and fascistic mono-ethnic thinking of a diploma mill used for political means by political masters only concerned with their own survival and vainglory, in all the excesses of political authority and one-dimensionality instilling fear of others instead of promoting diversity and the love for ethnic differences and cultural beauty.

The difference between our premiers

All these – and not much about the plain honesty of creating a generation of Malays able to see the true nature of their own potentials and be ready for an ever-changing world of globalising predatory.

Because today’s prime minster is a very weak and unwise man. Not a good man at all. The worst we have ever had, many are saying.

That’s the difference, if we agree. How then must the rakyat reclaim those once admirable institutions?

Wake up, speak up, alumni and all. Education is the art and science of creating the free man and woman.

“A multicultural, multi-vocalic, multidimensional understanding of Malaysia’s complex society.” This is what we need. This is a major theme on global education and international and intercultural understanding that Malaysian institutions such as UiTM need. This is it, rather than ones that continue to stupefy the students with themes that divide and insult the human intelligence as they relate to race and religion.

These institutions are not fit to be called universities and educational institutions if they continue to nurture cognitive-pathological thinking in an institution that is already mono-cultural. This is not necessary for an institution that denies the opportunities for the students to work together with students of other races, befitting of what Malaysia is and ought to be about.

I hope this misguided paradigm of educational progress and intellectual attainment can be changed with a gradual change in leadership; one that understands what education in the broadest sense of the word means.

Whilst universities the world over are taking pride in being globalised and oftentimes scrambling and racing to make their campuses truly diverse and multicultural, UiTM and Mara elite secondary schools i.e. Maktab Rendah Sains Mara (MRSM) are still taking pride in defending the rights to be exclusively one-race, one religion, one-myopic vision at the expense of the development of the students’ minds yearning to be multi-intelligent and able to develop multiple talents.

This has to change. Malaysians need to push for this change – because education is matter of national interest.

Enough of Islamophobia. Enough of Christian and Muslims massacring each other the world over. Let us not create another version of Chistianophobia or Islamophobia right here in Malaysia!

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s new political class seems to accept that a unified country remains more of an ideal than a reality, yet are far from agreeing on a joint solution to move forward. It also remains unclear as to whether they have anything different to say than the old guard on EU reform, and whether they really listen to the demands of civil society.

By Dr. Ulas Doga Eralp*

This month marks the 20the anniversary of the controversial Dayton Peace Agreement that put an end to the bloodshed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The architect of the Agreement, the late Richard Holbrooke, admitted that Dayton was no silver bullet for solving Bosnia’s complex problems. Still the Agreement held and post-conflict Bosnia turned into this strange bureaucratic creature that locals and internationals complain on a daily basis. Still considering that democracy in action means representative governmental institutions, plus a transparent and tolerant political culture, it is safe to say Bosnia has a little more to travel.

Liberal democratic paradigm suggests that the basis for a strong democracy precludes a powerful middle class. Powerful middle class is expected to support centrist politicians and demand an emergence of a new political cadre who is transparent in work and responsive to criticism. One clear indication of how far Bosnia has travelled is its new cadre of politicians. The question that remains to be answered though is whether Bosnia’s new political class lives up to this definition. First, let’s define who constitutes Bosnia’s new political class. These are a group of people who are relatively new to politics regardless of age, but largely young people who were teenagers during the war. For that reason they are well-versed in the looming structural issues of the Bosnian society across both entities such as high unemployment rate among the youth, lack of opportunity, corruption and frustration against an ineffective bureaucracy. Across all political parties new faces pop-up.

The new political class seems to accept that a unified Bosnia-Herzegovina remains more of an ideal than a reality. The reality is a fragmented society, a divided political space, and a stagnant economy at its best. However, it is difficult to say that the new politicians of Bosnia agree on a joint solution to move forward. The Euro-Atlantic integration process is thawing once again. Once Sarajevo submits an application for EU membership in January 2016, would minimal cooperation between the entities be enough for progress? Does the new political class say anything new that is different from the old guard on the EU reforms? Do they raise their voices for the protection of individual liberties and freedoms? Do they really listen to the demands of civil society?

Until these questions have definite answers Dayton will remain in place whether you like it or not. So Happy Dayton everyone!

*Dr. Ulas Doga Eralp is a scholar and practitioner of international conflict, human rights, development and democratization. He has a PhD from the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University, and currently works as a Professorial Lecturer at the International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program of the School of International Service (SIS) at American University in Washington, DC.

Welcoming the newly signed United Nations-brokered accord for a national unity government in Libya, the Security Council today urged the parties to implement its terms within the 30-day time limit, and called on the world community to provide all necessary aid to defeat terrorist groups.

The agreement to form a Government of National Accord with a Presidency Council, Cabinet, House of Representatives and State Council – signed in Morocco last week – was facilitated by the Secretary-General Special Representative, Martin Kobler, in a bid to end a four-year-long crisis that has left nearly 2.4 million Libyans in desperate need of humanitarian aid.

In a unanimously adopted resolution, the Council hailed the formation of the Presidency Council and called on it to work within the 30 days prescribed by the agreement to form a Government of National Accord, and finalize interim security arrangements needed to stabilize the North African country, which has been plagued by factional fighting since the 2011 revolution.

It called on all Member States to fully support Mr. Kobler’s efforts and work with the Libyan authorities and the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), which he heads, to develop a coordinated package of support to build the capacity of the Government of National Accord.

The resolution voiced concern at the grave humanitarian situation in Libya, called for the full participation of women in all activities relating to the democratic transition, conflict resolution and peacebuilding, and urged Member States to respond generously to humanitarian aid appeals.

It condemned terrorist acts committed in Libya by groups proclaiming allegiance to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); condemned any direct or indirect trade, in particular in oil and oil products, modular refineries, chemicals and lubricants with such groups; and called on all Member States to cooperate with the new Government to end such smuggling.

The Council urged Member States to “actively support the new Government in defeating ISIL, groups that have pledged allegiance to ISIL, Ansar Al Sharia, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida operating in Libya, upon its request.”

It urged coordinated international support tackle the threat posed by unsecured arms and ammunition and their proliferation in undermining regional stability, including through transfer to terrorists.

It also urged Member States to share with the new Government and with each other information on migrant smuggling and human trafficking in Libya’s territorial sea and on the high seas off the coast and to aid migrants and human trafficking victims recovered at sea.

Mr. Kobler welcomed the resolution as “a clear and unambiguous statement of support” by the international community for the new Government, and he called on Libyan political actors to redouble efforts to swiftly implement it.

“The door is wide open for all those who still oppose the Libyan Political Agreement. All Libyans should play a role in the restarted Libyan transition. The opportunity to end the political and security crisis in Libya is now,” he said in a statement, stressing that uniting in support of the new Government will put Libya closer to fulfilling the people’s aspirations for peace and prosperity.

“This requires starting the hard work today to bring about a better life for all Libyans,” he added.

In Swedish classrooms, religion is often associated with an obsolete time when people just didn’t know better – as if religion used to serve a purpose but there is no need for it in the modern world. This is the conclusion of a doctoral thesis from the University of Gothenburg that explores how teachers and students talk about religion and worldviews within the framework of non-confessional integrative Religious Education in upper-secondary classrooms.

“I found that religious faith is portrayed as incompatible with being a modern, rational and independently thinking human being. In contrast, a non-religious, atheistic position is articulated as a neutral and unbiased approach to religion. I had not expected this discourse to be so strong in all the studied classrooms,” said Karin Kittelmann Flensner, who wrote the thesis.

Kittelmann Flensner’s study is based on observations of Religious Education in three Swedish public upper-secondary schools during the schoolyear 2011–2012. She followed 13 teachers who taught in 24 different student groups. Sweden is often described as the world’s most secularised country, and Kittelmann Flensner found that the country’s secular attitudes were easily discernible also in the studied classrooms and dominated the talk about religion and worldviews.

She also identified two other ways of talking about religion and worldviews that partly challenge but also somewhat reinforced the dominating secularist discourse. She calls them a spiritual and a Swedishness discourse.

“If discussions touched on more general existential issues, there was more openness to positions that could be described as spiritual and include notions of a divine dimension and life after death,” she said.

Students and teachers also talked about Sweden as being a Christian country. However, this view did not refer to religious faith but rather to the Swedish tradition and history, and the point of the discussion was often to define a ‘we’ in relation to a ‘them’. In the classrooms, ‘the others’ became synonymous with religious people in general and Muslims in particular. And this despite the fact that there in every classroom were students who saw themselves as part of various Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious traditions.

It was also noted that students in vocational programs were not given the same opportunities as students in higher education-preparatory programs to practice analyzing and problematizing the subject content from different perspectives despite that these students follow the same syllabus of Religious Education.

The national syllabus of Religious Education emphasizes the importance of understanding and respecting people with different views and backgrounds, but the results of the study suggest that these aims may be difficult to reach if people belonging to various religious traditions are described as unintelligent and deceived, which was often the case. It also makes it difficult to prepare the students for a life in a pluralistic society.

“If teachers can be made aware of how religion and people with religious faith are talked about in their classrooms, I believe they can contribute to a learning environment that better promotes understanding and respect between different positions. We live in a pluralistic society, and I believe the school and Religious Education can play a key role in promoting positive development,” said Kittelmann Flensner.

Seen from the air, the peninsula that is home to the mid-Norway town of Ørland and the nation’s Main Air Station, looks like the head of a seahorse with its nose pointed south.

It didn’t always look this way, though.

A couple of thousands of years ago, Ørland’s peninsula looked more like the crook of a finger, with a bay sheltered on its southern side. At that time, Norway’s land area was still recovering from the last Ice Age, and the weight of the ice was so great that it actually depressed the ground, creating a bay. The land has since risen up, or rebounded, to form the dry land we know today.

That 1500-year-old sheltered bay and the fertile fields surrounding it turned out to be the perfect home for a settlement of Iron Age Norwegians – Norwegians who actively traded and liked their bling, if archaeological finds from the recent dig are any indication.

“This was a very strategic place,” said Ingrid Ystgaard, project manager at the Department of Archaeology and Cultural History at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s (NTNU) University Museum. “It was a sheltered area along the Norwegian coastal route from southern Norway to the northern coasts. And it was at the mouth of Trondheim Fjord, which was a vital link to Sweden and the inner regions of mid-Norway.”

New facilities and expanded runways

Ørland has long been known to archaeologists as a potential treasure trove of finds, because of its strategic location.

But because archaeologists can’t just go around digging up areas where they think there might be interesting remains, they have to wait for the opportunity to arise – as when Norway made the decision to purchase 52 new F-35 fighter jets.

The jets will need new facilities at Ørland, and the Air Force will also expand existing runways to accommodate the jets. Norwegian law requires a preliminary archaeological study of any construction site, and additional follow-up if anything of significance is turned up.

Size of the site adds significance

The size of the expansion puts the total area that archaeologists first need to study at roughly 91,000 m2, or nearly three times the area of a good-sized shopping center.

This, Ystgaard says, is a bonanza, because the size of the area allows archaeologists to see how different longhouses, garbage pits and other finds relate to each other.

“We’re really able to put things in context because the area is so big,” she said. The size of the dig also means there are lots of archaeologists at work, and for a long time.

More than 20 field staff will work a total of 40 weeks out on the site, until the end of the 2016 field season. The budget for the project is NOK 41 million, or about EUR 4.2 million, excluding the cost of the big excavating machines, and room and board for workers.

Bones and bling

It’s probably safe to say that few things excite archaeologists more than garbage dumps – or middens, as they are called in the trade. Even today, our trash says a lot about how we live – what we eat, what we wear, what we do for fun or work.

But it takes some really tough trash to survive 1500 years. Mostly, what archaeologists find are beads, glass and metal objects and ceramics, if they are lucky.

“Most of the time we don’t even find middens at all on sites that are older than the Mediaeval period,” Ystgaard said.

In this case, however, the team has also found lots of old animal and fish bones – mainly because the soil in the area is made from ground-up seashells, which isn’t very acidic. Normally, soil in Norway tends to be more acidic, and eats away at bones.

“Nothing like this has been examined anywhere in Norway before,” Ystgaard said.

There are enough bones to figure out what kinds of animals they came from, and how the actual animal varieties relate to today’s wild and domesticated animals, she said. The archaeologists have also found fish remains, from both salmon and cod, and the bones from seabirds, too.

The middens have also provided others surprises. One was a delicate blue glass bead and several amber beads, suggesting the former residents liked their bling. Another was the remains of a green drinking glass that was characteristic of imports from the Rhine Valley in Germany.

This last is also a testament to how well off the former residents of this area were, Ystgaard said. “It says something that people had enough wealth to trade for glass.”

Holes in the ground tell a story

To the average person, the discolored soil in a distinct polka-dot pattern that makes up most of what the archaeologists have found looks like – well, dirty dirt.

But for an archaeologist, the patterns and their context help tell a story and give significance to any items that they find.

The whole process of digging up a huge field is an impressive juxtaposition of big excavators, brought in to carefully peel off the top layers of soil, and archaeologists working with hoes, trowels, sieves and even paintbrushes and toothbrushes.

In the case of the Ørland site, the excavators are brought in to remove the layer of soil that has been recently farmed. Norwegians have farmed this land for a long time – in fact the name of the farm, Vik, the Norwegian word for bay, reflects its early origins as a farm on the bay that was here 1500 years ago. Now, the shoreline is 1.7 km away.

“The excavator operators are incredibly skilled,” Ystgaard said. “You can ask them to remove 2 centimeters of soil and they can do it.”

Farmstead in the shape of a U

As the excavators whittle away the soil, centimeter-by-centimeter, the archaeologists are on the lookout for the discolored soil that means there was an accumulation of organic material.

In this case, the size and the type of discolored soil may indicate a fire pit or a place where posts for longhouses were placed. Really big discolored areas near the longhouses are generally middens.

So far, these marks in the soil show that there were at least three buildings arranged in the shape of a U. The two longhouses that were parallel to each other measured 40 meters and 30 meters and were connected by a smaller building.

The 40-metre longhouse contained several fire pits, at least one of which was clearly used for cooking. Other fire pits may have provided light for handwork, or for keeping the longhouse warm.

Not far from here – but outside of the bounds of the site – Ystgaard expects there are graves, too, and a harbor with boat houses.

“There was a lot of activity here,” Ystgaard said of the site. “Now our job is to find out what happened here, how people lived. We discover new things every day we are out in the field. It’s amazing.”

New research on West Antarctic seabed life reveals that the remote region of the South Orkney Islands is a carbon sink hotspot.

The findings suggest that this recently designated (and world’s first) entirely high seas marine protected area may be a powerful natural ally in combating rising CO2 as sea ice melts.

“There has been a cascade of rising atmospheric CO2 driving warming, reducing sea ice, leading to longer micro-algal blooms—which means longer meal times for animals, which are growing more,” said Dr. David Barnes, senior author of the Global Change Biology study. The recently discovered polar seabed carbon gains remove carbon from cycling and represent a key negative feedback working against climate change.

This new science, which was conducted with Darwin Initiative funding, suggests that researchers should investigate whether maximizing natural carbon capture by seabed life could help reduce global CO2.

“It is remarkable that western leaders only remember the term ceasefire when their rebels on the ground are losing. Why didn’t they see the need for peace in Syria before the Russian operation started?” — Iyad Khuder, Damascus-based political analyst

Imagine if the American people elected a president who was much worse than George W. Bush or Barack Obama. A real tyrant. Would that be sufficient justification for someone like Vladimir Putin to arm and train Mexican and Canadian mercenaries to invade America, kill US civilians, destroy cities and critical infrastructure, seize vital oil refineries and pipeline corridors, behead government officials and prisoners they’d captured, declare their own independent state, and do everything in their power to overthrow the elected-government in Washington?

Of course not. The question is ridiculous. It wouldn’t matter if the US president was a tyrant or not, that doesn’t justify an invasion by armed proxies from another country.  And yet, this is precisely the policy that US Secretary of State John Kerry defended at the United Nations on Friday.  Behind all the political blabber about a “roadmap to peace”, Kerry was tacitly defending a policy which has led to the deaths of 250,000 Syrians and the destruction of the country.

And, keep in mind, Kerry didn’t drag his case before the UN Security Council because he’s serious about a negotiated settlement or peace. That’s baloney. What Kerry wants is a resolution that will protect the groups of US-backed jihadis on the ground from the Russian-led offensive. That’s what’s really going on. The Obama administration sees the handwriting on the wall. They know that Russia is going to win the war, so they’ve settled on a plan for protecting their agents in the field. That’s why the emphasis is on a ceasefire; it’s because Kerry wants a  “Timeout” so his Sunni militants can either regroup or retreat.  Just take a look at this short excerpt from the UN’s summary of last Friday’s confab and you’ll see Kerry’s really up-to:

“In its first resolution to focus on the politics of ending Syria’s five-year-long war, the Security Council today gave the United Nations an enhanced role in shepherding the opposing sides to talks for a political transition, with a timetable for a ceasefire, a new constitution and elections, all under UN auspices….

(The Security Council) acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process, with the former to come into effect as soon as the sides have begun initial steps towards a political transition under UN auspices….

The resolution asked Mr. Ban through the offices of his Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to determine the modalities of a ceasefire and plan to support its implementation, while urging Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to adhere to one.

Emphasizing the need for a ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism, the Council asked Mr. Ban to report back to it on options with a month, and called on Member States to provide “expertise and in-kind contributions” to support such a mechanism…”

(“In first political resolution on war-torn Syria, Security Council gives UN major role in seeking peace”, UN News Centre)

See what I mean: Ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire. It’s all about a ceasefire. Kerry wants a ceasefire. Obama wants a ceasefire. A big part of the ruling US establishment want a ceasefire. No, not the neocons, not the liberal interventionists, and not the diehard hawks like Ash Carter at the Pentagon, but a good portion of the ruling elites who’ve been following events on the ground and who know how this thing is going to end. The smart money has already moved on to Plan B, which is why they’re now focused on cutting their losses and saving as many of “their guys” as possible.  Naturally, the people who funded, armed, trained and deployed these various Sunni fighters feel responsible for their safety, so they’re going to do whatever they can to get them out. That’s where Kerry comes in. Kerry’s job was to fly to Moscow, tell Putin that Obama had changed his mind about regime change, and get the Kremlin to back Kerry’s UN resolution. The primary objective of this farce is to garner international support for designating terrorist groups as “moderates” and to move in the direction of UN-mandated ceasefire that will stop the Russian-led offensive in its tracks.

But isn’t that what everyone wants, an end to the hostilities?

Not exactly. A war against terrorists is different than a war between nation-states or a civil war. A group like Jabhat al-Nusra, for example, can’t be treated the same way as armed members of the political opposition. These are religious fanatics determined to use any means possible to achieve their goal of a fascist Islamic Caliphate. Reasoned discourse doesn’t work with people like this,  they have to be killed or captured. And this is exactly what the Russian-led coalition is doing, they’re progressively mopping up the terrorist threat in Syria at great risk to themselves and their fellow-collation members Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian Arab Army.  Kerry’s job is to throw a wrench in the anti-terror campaign to impede the coalition’s progress. And he’s willing to lie to do it.  Case in point: Here’s a quote from Kerry in Moscow just last Tuesday:

“As I emphasized today, the United States and our partners are not seeking so-called “regime change,” as it is known in Syria.

Later in the day, Kerry underscored the administration’s dramatic about-face saying: “We are not trying to do a regime change. We are not engaged in a color revolution.  We’re not engaged in trying to interfere in another country … We’re trying to make peace.”

Okay, so the US has given up on regime change?

Not at all. Kerry was just lying through his teeth as usual.  Here’s what he said less than 24 hours later:

“Russia can’t stop the war with Assad there because Assad attracts the foreign fighters. Assad is a magnet for terrorists, because they’re coming to fight Assad.  So if you want to stop the war in Syria, and we do, if you want to fight Daesh and stop the growth of terrorism, you have to deal with the problem of Assad. Now, that doesn’t mean we want to change every aspect of the government; we don’t.”

(‘US not after regime change in Syria, but Assad must go’ – Kerry to Russian TV”, RT)

Got that? So the US doesn’t support regime change, but Assad’s still got to go.

How’s that for hypocrisy? The truth is the Obama administration is just as committed to toppling Assad as ever. Kerry was just misleading Putin to get his approval for his ridiculous resolution at the UN.  As a result, Assad’s name was never mentioned in the resolution which,  Kerry seems to think, is a big victory for the US. But it’s not a victory, in fact, all of Russia’s demands were met in full through the passing of UN Resolution  2254 (three resolutions were passed on Friday) which reiterates all Putin’s demands dating back to the Geneva Communique’ of 2012.  Assad was never mentioned in 2254 either, because naming the president wasn’t necessary to establish the conditions for 1–a transitional government, 2–outlining the terms for a new constitution and  a non-Islamist Syrian state, and 3—free and fair elections to ensure the Syrian people control their own future. In 2012, the US rejected these three provisions saying that the would not agree unless Assad was excluded from participating in the transitional government. Now the US has reversed its position on Assad which means that 100 percent of Moscow’s demands have been met.  UN Resolution  2254 is complete capitulation on the part of the US. It is a humiliating diplomatic defeat which no one in the media is even willing to acknowledge.

So what did Kerry gain by all his globe-trekking and backroom maneuvering?

Nothing. In fact, he gave away the farm by making a number of concessions to gain Russia’s support.

What “concessions” are we talking about?

Here’s a short list:  Kerry met with Putin in Moscow on December 15. On December 16, the IMF ruled in favor of Russia in its $3 billion claim against Ukraine. Here’s the story:

“The executive board of the International Monetary Fund has recognized Ukraine’s $3 billion debt to Russia as official and sovereign – a status Kiev has been attempting to contest.

“In the case of the Eurobond, the Russian authorities have represented that this claim is official. The information available regarding the history of the claim supports this representation,” the IMF said in a statement.” (“IMF recognizes Ukraine’s contested $3bn debt to Russia as sovereign “, RT)

How many strings do you think Washington had to pull to seal that deal?

Also on December 16,  the US announced that it would remove its F-15 fighters stationed in Turkey immediately. Here’s the story:

Twelve U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters sent to Incirlik airbase only last month to guard Turkish airspace and hit ISIS targets in Syria were suddenly flown back Wednesday to their home base in Britain, U.S. European Command announced….

The redeployment of the fighters came amid a flurry of diplomatic and military-to-military activity in the region and with Russia …

A day before the planes left, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of United Nations Security Council meetings in New York Friday on Syria and U.S. efforts to ease out President Bashar al-Assad.

(“US Air Force Begins Withdrawing F-15 Fighter Jets From Turkey“, Military.com)

Another coincidence?

Not likely.

Then there’s this:  On December 17, Obama allowed a Russian-backed resolution to pass the UNSC unanimously that that will help uncover secret  financing for ISIS and “strengthen legal measures against those doing business with terrorist groups.” According to RT:

“The resolution is the result of a joint effort by Russia and the US, which are both leading anti-IS campaigns in Syria….The key objective of the new resolution is the “enforcement of a framework to reveal and disrupt illegal financing of IS and groups related to it by means of trade in oil, artifacts, and other illegal sources.”…

The document, which is based on UN Charter Article VII and takes effect immediately, calls for members to “move vigorously and decisively to cut the flow of funds” to IS.”

UN Security Council unanimously adopts resolution targeting ISIS finances

Is that what Obama really wants, to expose the revenue streams for these extremist organizations that are clearly getting support from Washington’s main allies in the Gulf?

Probably not, but Kerry caved-in anyway hoping that his support would help him to nab the elusive ceasefire.

Finally,  on December 18, Obama told Turkish President Erdogan that he wanted him to  remove his troops and tanks from Iraq. Here’s the story:

“US President Barack Obama has called on his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to withdraw his country’s troops out of Iraq and respect its integrity. In a telephone call on Friday, Obama “urged President Erdogan to take additional steps to deescalate tensions with Iraq, including by continuing to withdraw Turkish military forces.”

He also “reinforced the need for Turkey to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq,” the White House said.

A 300-strong contingent of Turkish forces backed by 20 to 25 tanks was stationed on the outskirts of the city of Mosul, the capital of Iraq’s Nineveh Province, on December 4.” (“Obama to Erdogan: Withdraw Turkish troops from Iraq“, Press TV)

(Turkey has since promised to remove more troops following Obama’s call.)

In other words, the Turkish occupation began on December 4, but Obama never responded until two days after Kerry talked with Putin in Moscow. Another coincidence?

Maybe or maybe not. In any event the US had to do some serious horse-trading to persuade Putin to take Kerry’s issue to the Security Council. (By the way, Obama knew beforehand that Turkey planned to invade Iraq, in fact, “an important Turkish official  confirmed this claim by saying “all relevant countries” were informed about the deployment of the troops. See here for details.

Like we said earlier: Kerry gave away the farm to slam a deal that isn’t going to have the slightest impact on the outcome of the war.  And that’s what’s so tragic about all this diplomatic tap-dancing, is that it doesn’t really change anything. Syria’s future is going to be decided on the battlefield not at the United Nations and not at the bargaining table. Washington decided that long ago when it elected to use force of arms to try to achieve its geopolitical ambitions.  Now an organized opposition has emerged that is openly challenging US-backed proxies leaving Washington with just two options, fight or retreat.

It had to come to this, didn’t it?   After all, if you push people hard enough, eventually they push back.

“He’s sees you when you’re sleeping. He’s knows when you’re awake.”

Chances are you recognize these lines from the famous Christmas tune, “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” We can debate about how it is that Santa knows all these things. Perhaps it’s the fact he’s magical? Is Santa omnipotent? Does he have a part-time job with the NSA? Perhaps we’ll never know.

This time of year, one always hears stories about how the holiday season has been corrupted by commercialism. People “waste” money every year buying gifts and other useless trinkets that many recipients will never use. They argue that such activities diminish or overshadow the true meaning of the season.

Readers of this blog will know that I’m a fan of all things voluntary. If people want to spend their hard-earned money buying their brother a tacky gift, who am I to judge? But I am sensitive to concerns about waste—government waste.

Leave it to the U.S. government to bring the words “Santa” and “wasteful” into the same sentence.

How? Well, every year for the past several decades, the North American Aerospace Defensive Command (NORAD) has spent real taxpayer dollars to track Santa Claus as he makes his journey around the globe. On Christmas Eve, children everywhere can look on the web to observe Santa’s progress. Parents, on the other hand, can feel infinitely safer knowing that the U.S. military is spending actual time and money to track a fictional character.

The organization claims that they spend “very few tax dollars” on the project. (I cannot find an actual number.) But don’t let that get you down. As this post in the Washington Post points out, a thriving military-industrial complex means that NORAD teams up with a bunch of companies every year to get the job done. Translated into English, this probably means there is some government contract given to companies to put this together. So taxpayer dollars aren’t allocated to “Santa tracking” per se, but rather a contract for the “development of equipment for the analysis of obese Arctic travelers flying abroad quadrupeds during the 4^th quarter.”

Now people may accuse me of being a Grinch. It’s just a little bit of fun, right? How can I be so callous as to disparage the government offering a bit of fun to children every year? Well, the origins of “Santa tracker” aren’t so lighthearted. The tradition began in 1955 as anti-Soviet propaganda. It was a part of PR campaign in which Santa was “being protected” by the U.S. military from godless communists.

But there is another reason to be concerned about this seemingly trivial tradition. If we think about the money the government wastes every year to track Santa, the next logical question becomes, what else is the government using our money to fund?

Well, there’s quite a bit. How about the $267,000 spent on a study to uncover why some people date “out of their league?” Apparently, we needed a $1.3 million study to see if beer koozies really do keep beverages cold. Some $780,000 was allocated to find out if pizza is as addictive as crack cocaine.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) shelled out over $800,000 to see if mountain lions could be trained to run on treadmills. The USDA spent $50,000 to develop Alpaca “Poop Packs” to be used as fertilizer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent over $800,000 to develop a smartphone app to help parents get their children to eat their vegetables. Government researchers also spent around $200,000 to determine if Wikipedia is sexist.

After that, you might need to relax a bit. A drink or a massage perhaps? Well, luckily, the government has you covered there too. Taxpayers doled out another $200,000 so Uncle Same could text heavy drinkers and tell them not to drink. As for that massage, you’ll have to open your wallet, but the National Institutes of Health paid nearly $400,000 for rabbits to receive Swedish massages to determine if it helped recovering from illness.

So while tracking Santa may seem like all fun and games, it’s important to remember the larger picture. While you may be enjoying a Christmas ham, government spending is consistently packed with pork, and we bear the consequences. From NORAD’s Santa Tracker to apalca poop, paying for these programs is a massive lump of coal in our collective stocking.

What’s worse is that all of these examples, though wasteful, are likely benign. The worst thing that can come from a bunny massage is one contented rabbit and one highly confused masseuse. But there are other government programs that have definite negative consequences. Many of these programs are never questioned. It’s worse than the time my great grandmother bought my older brother a “My Little Pony.”

This article was published at The Beacon.

It must not be forgotten that the United States government has an established practice of luring black American and Middle Eastern individuals into committing or appearing to commit terrorist acts. The Newburgh Four and the Liberty City Seven are among those now serving long prison terms under these circumstances. The individuals convicted usually carried out their handlers instructions and in some cases didn’t commit a crime at all. They were said to have pledged an oath to al Qaeda or plotted a terror attack entirely concocted by an agent provocateur. In other cases, such as that of the so-called underwear bomber in 2009, inexplicable plots make the case for more war and interventions abroad.

On December 2, 2015 fourteen people were shot to death in San Bernardino, California as they gathered at a work place meeting. Several eye witnesses described shooters or suspicious persons fleeing the scene as three white men wearing black military type clothing. Five hours after the shooting a married couple of Pakistani ethnicity, Syed Farook and Tafsheen Malik, were shot to death by police and named as the perpetrators. Farook was an employee who left the location prior to the shooting. He was a brown skinned man and would not have been described as white. No one reported seeing a female shooter. The FBI made no mention of a third suspect, declared the Farooks as the perpetrators and announced the case closed.

It is possible that eyewitnesses who spoke to the media were incorrect but is also questionable that the same media won’t raise the issue or ask the FBI to comment. Whatever the motivation for the unacknowledged discrepancy, the public are left to ask the questions that the press and politicians won’t. The divergent description of suspects is not the only problematic issue with this case.

Two days after the attack the Farooks’ landlord gave the media access to their apartment and the crush of reporters rendered the location useless as a crime scene. The FBI’s response was very odd. They claimed they were finished with their investigation and had no need to secure the home. It is an understatement to call that assertion highly implausible. After numerous press reports that Tafsheen Malik posted public support for jihad and martyrdom on social media, the FBI was forced to admit that she had expressed these views in private messages intended only for a small group of people.

There are more questions than answers because the Farooks are dead. An associate named Enrique Marquez admits to purchasing guns for Farook. He called 911 in a panic and confessed as much. After checking himself into a psychiatric facility Marquez was charged with hatching terror plans in 2011 and 2012 with Farook that the two never carried out. He has not been charged in the San Bernardino shootings at all.

Every terrorist act results in calls for war, increased surveillance, and support for imperial aggressions abroad. If the official version of the San Bernardino shooting is accepted without questions, the government has a free hand to convince the public of anything that suits their agenda.

FBI direct James Comey used the terror attacks in Paris to make a case against encrypted communications. The Paris attackers didn’t encrypt any of their text messages, but that is not the point. Comey and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community want to make sure than no one has privacy from the government and the corporate media dutifully went along with advocating for his bogus claims.

It is open to question whether Syed Farook or Tafsheen Malik shot anyone in San Bernardino, California on the date in question. The possible scenarios are many. Perhaps he shot and she didn’t, or they had accomplices, or they were in league with others who did the shooting while they did not. Maybe they were complicit but also turned into doomed patsies fated to take the fall. Unfortunately it is true that dead people tell no tales.

President George W. Bush used the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 to invade nations and kill hundreds of thousands of people. President Obama followed suit with never ending occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and new regime change plots for Libya and Syria. In the process he created a massive refugee crisis.

The United States also created ISIS but now whips up fear of its unwanted child in order to manipulate support for more war. It isn’t hard to make uninformed and racist Americans fearful. After the November terror attacks in Paris they sought to ban the refugees whose desperation was created by their own government. Every terrorist act creates a greater reluctance to ask questions and a greater willingness to kill other people.

Who benefits? There are people and interests who gain advantage from terror and violence. Letting fourteen people die is a price they are willing to pay. Frightened people will accept lies and propaganda and avert their eyes from their nation’s wrong doing. That is why no one should be shy about asking how three white men can suddenly turn into a Pakistani man and woman.

By Behnam Ben Taleblu*

Over the past year, the Middle East has witnessed the burgeoning  of a new conflict dyad: the Islamic Republic of Iran versus Daesh 1. Occupying swaths of Arab territory beside its Persian neighbor, Daesh has rapidly expanded both its agenda and the scale of its atrocities. However, by targeting Iran’s key state allies – Iraq and Syria – as well as followers of the Shiite branch of Islam, which roughly 90 per cent of Iranians subscribe to, Daesh set itself on a collision course with Iran. While Tehran regards Daesh as a political and religious challenge, strategically, Tehran seeks to erode, not eliminate it. The rise of Daesh offers the Islamic Republic a major opportunity to exploit: securing a dominant position in the Middle East under the auspices of combatting terrorism.

DAESH IN IRAN’S REGIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

Iran’s campaign against Daesh is a means of strengthening its strategic position, in line with Tehran’s national security strategy in place since the Arab uprisings. Iran’s strategy in the Middle East with respect to the territories controlled by Daesh has been three-fold. Firstly, Iran has focused on preserving the existing state structure, propping-up its allies in positions of political power. Secondly, Iran provides support by way of training, arming, and even providing command and control to Shiite militias and government forces engaged in fighting. Thirdly, Iran seeks to become indispensable to local combat forces so as to retain influence in the short term, and have a rationale for prospective political-military intervention in the long term.

Importantly, for any or all of Iran’s strategies to be realized, Daesh does not need to be destroyed.2 However for Daesh, adherents of Shiite Islam like Iran represent a perversion of its faith, and an impediment to attaining their desired caliphate. Recently, Iranian sources claimed to have overturned a Daesh-linked cell in the Iranian city of Kermanshah near Iraq.3 Yet Iranian officials remain adamant that Daesh has no sympathizers in Iran, even amongst its minority Sunni population.4 Iranian military commanders do not see Daesh ‘as a threat to the Islamic Republic of Iran’5, but rather as a threat to Iran’s allies. Thus, actions in support of the liberation of Iraqi and Syrian cities serve a broader purpose than perceived by the international community. Each victory by an Iranian allied militia or force operating under Iranian control represents increased leverage for Iran over its clients. It also furthers an aura of indispensability, locking-in Iran and its allies, not the U.S.-led coalition, as successful arbiters of security in the region.

As self-appointed champion of the oppressed, Iran’s strategy in the Middle East has always been two- pronged, seeking to balance its unique Persian and Shiite ethno-sectarian identity to promote its distinct form of Islamism while at the same time presenting itself as a force of resistance to the present order.6 However, these two dimensions of Iran’s strategy are difficult to reconcile. The longer the conflict against Daesh rages, the more Iran’s interventions take on (and will likely continue to take on) a distinctly sectarian nature. Iran’s Shiite identity and the terror group’s radical interpretation of Sunni Islam represent two competing and irreconcilable visions for an Islamist political order in the Middle East.

Iranian authorities failed to see how the strident sectarianism in their regional policy contributed to the rise of Daesh, which they instead blamed on an American plot to weaken Tehran. In a public address in October 2014, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei proclaimed: ‘This takfiri7 orientation – the thing that has emerged in Iraq, Syria and some other regional countries today and that confronts all Muslims, not just Shias – is the handicraft of colonialists themselves. They made something called al-Qaida and Daesh in order to confront the Islamic Republic and the movement of
the Islamic Awakening.’8 Khamenei’s linkage of Daesh to the US and Europe is a view shared by numerous other hardliners. One Iranian parliamentarian likened Daesh to g ‘agents of America, England, and Israel’s security systems,’9 while a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts stated: ‘Israel, Daesh, the Taliban, and Wahabism are illegitimate children of American foreign policy and all these groups are born within America.’10 This conflation of the Unites States with Daesh is distorted and erroneous, as it not only ignores the fact that America is currently leading an international coalition to combat Daesh, but also denies agency to local Arab actors.11

SHORING UP TEHRAN’S CLIENTS

Iran’s position towards Daesh must be seen in the light of its desire to retain its network of strategic clients across the Middle East. In order to defend its allies in government in Syria and Iraq while retaining leverage over them, success for Tehran against Daesh focuses not on destroying the group but weakening it. This limited approach assures that Tehran’s allies retain control over the territory they currently hold, but remain reliant on Iran to defend or expand it.

For the international community, Tehran’s actions are designed to heighten a stark choice. Either commit to supporting the central government in Iraq and Syria, or risk siding with rebel factions that may include or have relations with Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusrah, or other Sunni Arab Jihadists. Leading by example, Iran supports the Ba’athist regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and the Shiite-led government of Iraq. Its support, in the form of both financial assistance and diplomatic cover is the main pillar of its strategy to extend and solidify its regional influence.

Financially, open-source estimates of Iranian aid to Syria greatly outweigh those to Iraq.12 These estimates obviously don’t include funding to Shiite militias, for which reporting on assets is scarce. And while recent estimates of Iranian defense spending suggest a figure of $17 billion, in reality, the off-the-books amount is suspected to be much higher.

Additionally, Iran’s ability to tip the balance in regional crises with low-cost systems requiring high-cost countermeasures is well documented.13

Diplomatically, Iran operated during the recent talks in Vienna to excise references to Assad’s ousting from a statement about Syria’s future.14 Similarly, Ali-Akbar Velayati, an advisor to Supreme Leader Khamenei, touted that ’No one supported Bashar Assad, the President, up to the extent of the Islamic Republic of Iran.’15 Iran’s willingness to replace its long-time ally in Iraq, former Prime Minister Maliki,16 while adamantly refusing to give up Assad in Syria,17 is unsurprising as it reflects Tehran’s ability to retain its interests in Iraq absent Maliki, but not in Syria absent Assad. Syria also matters to Iran because of its geographical proximity with Israel and the land-bridge into Lebanon it provides.

MILITARY ASSISTANCE

In terms of operational assistance, no force has had more experience in both theaters of conflict than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its elite foreign operations unit, the Quds-Force (IRGC-QF). Iran’s IRGC-QF has led the fight against Daesh, and when re-interpreted through the lens of Iran’s strategy, that means deploying forces, orienting and synchronizing assets in support of the Syrian and Iraqi armies, gathering new recruits, as well as enlisting help from proxies like Hezbollah. As a result of this policy the already ailing Iraqi central government becomes even more dependent on Tehran, and Tehran has leverage to provide it with lifelines as it sees fit.

Similarly, the US State Department’s most recent Country Report on Terrorism noted that, ‘Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia militias…in response to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) incursion into Iraq, and has continued to support other militia groups in the region.’18 Unlike in Syria, where Iran’s active involvement is needed, along with trained battalions of new Arab recruits,19 in Iraq, Iran has robust and longstanding connections to groups with battlefield experience. Most of these groups cut their teeth during the US occupation of Iraq, and now form the principle defense (along with Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, or Jaish al-Sha’abi) against Daesh. Prominent examples include groups like As-Saib Ahl al-Haq (AAH – The Righteous League), The Badr Brigade, K’taib Hezbollah (KH – The Hezbollah Brigades), and more recently, Harakat al-Nujaba (Movement of the Noble Ones).20 The glue that appears to hold them together is Iranian command and control, best exemplified by one man – IRGC-QF Commander Major General Qassem Soleimani.

Soleimani’s presence on the battlefield in some of the major fighting against Daesh in Iraq, such as in Jurf al-Sakher, as well as Amerli (where Iraqi forces were aided by American airpower), further fuels existing rumors about his role as strategic architect of Iran’s offensives against Daesh. Soleimani’s role on the battlefield is even said to boost the morale of Shiite militiamen and recruits. Operationally, Soleimani has been involved in the selection of members of Iran’s IRGC sent to battle. This was clearly the case with Mohammad-Ali Allah-Dadi, an Iranian Brigadier General who had served in the Iran-Iraq War. Soleimani reportedly tapped Allah-Dadi for an assignment in Syria, where he was later ‘martyred’ by an Israeli helicopter attack near the Golan Heights. Allah-Dadi’s location at the time of his death – Quneitra–points to Iran’s ability to use the ongoing conflict against Daesh to further entrench its position and advance other regional goals – such as opening a new front against Israel. Back in Iran, Soleimani personally performed funeral rites for the deceased Brigadier General.21

Nevertheless, Soleimani’s omnipresence in the fight against Daesh, and the full force of the IRGC-QF have been insufficient to turn the tide in Syria. In the fight to save Assad and an Iranian-allied Syria, Iran has established and fielded an all-Afghan Shiite force named the Fattemiyoun. In addition, a Pakistani Shiite contingent, dubbed the Zainabiyoun, is reportedly also fighting.22 Iran’s sourcing of Shiites from South Asia will lead to challenges when they are set to return.23

Arabs too, particularly from Lebanese Hezbollah, as well as Iraqi Shiite recruits, are well represented in the Syrian front24 and are likely under the IRGC-QF’s command. News from the Syrian front continues to reference Iranian, as well as allied militia deaths – most of which are in ongoing battlefields such as Aleppo. Reportedly in response to these losses, Iran appears to be pulling- out droves of IRGC members from the Syrian theater.25 At the same time, according to Ali Alfoneh, given the increasing battle deaths of IRGC-QF members in Syria, Iran had been sending in other branches of the IRGC, chiefly the IRGC – Ground Forces (IRGC-GF).26 Alfoneh rightly notes that this development ‘blurs’ the previously circumscribed scope of operations for Guardsmen.27

Given the significant increase in Iranian casualties in Syria, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian crisis effectively augments Iranian power,28 allowing Iran to continue advising Syrian forces while limiting their own exposure. Despite securing Russian air power, however, a Russian-Iranian alliance is unlikely to survive beyond the conflict, or be feasible elsewhere in the medium-term. Russia will likely pursue its own aims, as evidenced most recently by placement of the S-400’s in Syria.29 Historically, Iran played the role of a pawn in Russia’s competition with the US, to be sacrificed at the right time for a larger strategic purpose. At the same time, Iran has looked to Russia as a force with the capability to fundamentally alter the dynamics of its game against the West. Given the lack of parity in the relationship, it is Iran that needs Russia, and Russia that can extract a higher price for the partnership. This dynamic will likely prevent the current tactical alliance from developing into the broader relationship Iran’s Supreme Leader recently hoped for in his meeting with President Putin.30

IRAN, A WESTERN ALLY AGAINST DAESH?

Iran’s actions and limited battlefield successes pose a major policy conundrum for the international coalition against Daesh, and Western strategy more broadly. Iran’s early and active role in combating Daesh was intended to create a certain dependency which would see the world rallying around Tehran’s allied regimes in Damascus and Baghdad. So far, Iran has been able to count on egregious crimes committed by Daesh to direct coalition firepower away from the Assad regime and towards Daesh. Iran’s intent is to deprive the West of options in the long-run. While the West focuses on fighting Daesh, Iranian allied militias and national government forces are free to go after other (non-jihadist) members of the opposition. In the short-run, this strategy risks making Western airpower a tool to further Iranian objectives on the ground.

Seen in this light, Iran cannot be counted upon as an ally in the war against Daesh. Its superseding policy goals of expanding its regional influence and solidifying its position under the guise of rolling back terrorism make for a poor partner. That is not to say that Tehran will obstruct the West from targeting Daesh; it may even lend tactical support to the coalition, as occurred through its allied Shiite militias in Iraq in 2014. However, enlisting Iran, a Persian-Shiite power, to militarily resolve an affair rooted in the ongoing struggle for Arab-Sunni hearts, minds, and allegiances, will only fan the flames of the ongoing Saudi-Iranian Cold War, which has already cast conflicts in sectarian terms. Under such a scenario, Iranian successes will be seen as Shiite successes, and will be read in Riyadh, Doha and Cairo as a Sunni defeat. And while the West deliberates over the scope of Iran’s involvement, be it in diplomatic talks or operations on the ground, Tehran remains both willing and able to exploit the vacuum of decisiveness.

The fallout from Iran’s efforts to combat Daesh in the context of its struggle for regional primacy against Saudi Arabia has yielded negative consequences for the Middle East. It has deprived states of their sovereignty and lead to an increase in sectarian tensions, and the fragmentation of political and military authority. This fallout can be expected to continue, and may not be lessened even with a (currently unlikely) peaceful solution to the Syrian civil war. In particular, Iran’s near omnipresence in practically every aspect of the funding, recruiting, arming, training and fighting of the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, all under the guise of combating Daesh, has afforded it a greater say in the future of the Middle East. This greater say inherently locks in the prospects for continued conflict, and cements Iran’s role as one of its key arbiters.

About the author:
*Behnam Ben Taleblu is an independent Iran analyst

Source:
This article was published by FRIDE as Policy Brief 213 (PDF)

This Policy Brief belongs to the project ‘Transitions and Geopolitics in the Arab World: links and implications for international actors’, led by FRIDE and HIVOS. We acknowledge the generous support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. For further information on this project, please contact: Kristina Kausch, FRIDE (kkausch@ fride.org).

Notes:
1. Daesh is the Arabic and Persian acronym for the ‘Islamic State (of Iraq and Syria)’.
2. See K. Sadjadpour and B.B.Taleblu, ‘Iran in the Middle East: Leveraging Chaos’, FRIDE Policy Brief, May 2015.
3. ‘Terror Cell Linked to Daesh Busted in Western Iran’, Press TV, 18 November 2015, http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/18/438204/
Daesh-Iran-Kermanshah-IRGC.
4. ‘Assistant to the President of Iran: We Have No Current in Line with Daesh in the Country’, BBC Persian, 19 November 2015,
http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2015/11/151129_l30_younesi_iran_isis.
5. See: ‘Ground Force Commander Underlines Iran’s Special Plans to Fight ISIL’, Fars News Agency, 19 September 2015.
6. See M. Tahrioglu and B. B. Taleblu, ‘Turkey and Iran: The Best of Frenemies’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Spring 2015.
7. The accusation of apostasy/disbelief by one Muslim against the other.
8. See: ‘Supreme Leader’s Speech on the Occasion Eid al-Ghadir’, Office of the Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei, 13 October 2014,
http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/index.php?p=contentShow&id=12521.
9. See translation in: ‘Iran Press Review: 17 Sept.’, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 17 September 2014, http://www.defend
democracy.org/iran-press-review-17-sept/.
10. See translation in: ‘Iran Press Review: 19 Sept.’, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 19 September 2014, http://www.defend
democracy.org/iran-press-review-19-sept/.
11. See also: A. Kredo, ‘Iran Promises ‘Crushing Response’ to Israeli Strike’, The Washington Free Beacon, 20 January 2015.
12. Compare, for example: E. Lake, ‘Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up Assad’, Bloomberg, 9 June 2015, with: M. Ryan and L. Morris, ‘The
U.S. and Iran Are Aligned in Iraq Against the Islamic State — for Now’, The Washington Post, 27 December 2014.
13. See: P. Megahan and B.B. Taleblu, ‘Putting Iran’s Arms Proliferation Back in Business’, Military Edge, 5 August 2015,
http://militaryedge.org/analysis-articles/putting-irans-arms-proliferation-business/.
14. See: ‘Iran Nixed Assad Ouster Clause in Vienna: Amir-Abdollahian,’ Press TV, 15 November 2015
15. ‘Velayati in an Interview with Al-Safir: Relations with China and Russia Will Become Strategic/Assad is Stronger Than Before’, Mehr News
Agency, 19 November 2015.
16. See: P. Hafezi, R. Salman, and M. Georgy, ‘Iran Seeks Alternative to Maliki to Hold Iraq Together: Sources,’ Reuters, 5 August 2014,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/05/us-iraq-security-politics-idUSKBN0G51FP20140805#h8itQ5fW01gDMezS.97.
17. See, for example: M. Kerver, ‘Iranian President: Syria’s al-Assad Must Remain to Fight ‘Terrorists’‘, CNN, 27 September 2015,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/world/rouhani-syria-iran-amanpour/.
18. See Iran section in: ‘Chapter 3: State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview’, US Department of State, 2015, http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/
crt/2014/239410.htm.
19. A. Karami, ‘Will Iran Pursue High-Cost Strategy in Syria?’,Al Monitor, 18 November 2015, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/
2015/11/iran-killed-syria-hamedani-civil-war.html#.
20. On Nujaba’s devotion to Iran, see: B. Roggio and C. Weiss, ‘Iraqi Shiite Militia Leader Says He Would Overthrow Government if
Ordered by Iran’s Supreme Leader’, The Long War Journal, 12 November 2015, http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/11/us-
designated-terrorist-of-iraqi-militia-reportedly-in-aleppo.php.
21. B.B. Taleblu, ‘Iranian Political and Military Leaders Laud Qods Force General Killed in Syria’, The Long War Journal, 24 January 2015,
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/01/following_irans_resp.php.
22. A. Alfoneh, ‘Shiite Combat Casualties Show the Depth of Iran’s Involvement in Syria’, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 3 August
2015, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria.
23. A. Alfoneh, ‘Analysis: Shiite Afghan Casualties of the War in Syria’, The Long War Journal, 12 March 2015, http://www.longwarjournal.org/
archives/2015/03/analysis-shiite-afghan-casualties-of-the-war-in-syria.php.
24. Reported in: A. Taylor, ‘These Little-Noticed Foreign Fighters May be Tipping the Balance in Syria’, The Washington Post, 4 February 2015,
https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/04/these-little-noticed-foreign-fighters-may-be-tipping-the-balance-in-syria/. 25. See: E. Lake, ‘Western Officials: Iran Retreating From Syria Fight’, Bloomberg, 10 December 2015, http://www.bloombergview.com/
articles/2015-12-10/western-officials-iran-retreating-from-syria-fight.
26. A. Alfoneh, ‘The IRGC’s New Deployment Pattern’, The Arab Weekly, 23 October 2015, http://www.thearabweekly.com/?id=2503. 27. A. Alfoneh, ‘The IRGC’s New Deployment Pattern’, The Arab Weekly, 23 October 2015.
28. See, for example: B. Roggio, ‘Senior IRGC Officers Killed During Fighting in Syria’, The Long War Journal, 5 November 2015.
29. ‘Russia Deploys S-400 Missiles at Syria Base: Ministry’, AFP, 26 November 2015.
30. See translated statements in: ‘Iran Press Review’, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 23 November 2015.

(EurActiv) — Spain’s two biggest left-wing parties ruled out supporting a government led by the ruling People’s Party (PP) on Monday, complicating Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s efforts to build a coalition to stay in power after a tight general election.

Parties began staking out positions for what are expected to be weeks of complex talks on forming a government after Rajoy’s centre-right PP won most votes in Sunday’s election but fell well short of the 176 seats needed for a parliamentary majority.

Two newcomers – leftist anti-austerity Podemos (“We can”) and the liberal Ciudadanos (“Citizens”) – entered the mainstream for the first time, ending domination by the PP and Socialists stretching back to soon after dictator Francisco Franco’s death in 1975.

The two parties won scores of seats in parliament, tapping widespread anger over a recently-ended economic slump and high-level corruption in the European Union’s fifth-largest economy.

The close vote, which put the Socialists in second place ahead of Podemos and Ciudadanos, makes it extremely difficult for any party to win majority support, raising the possibility of a deadlock that could force new elections in the new year.

Markets were spooked by the political uncertainty and nervous investors moved out of Spanish assets, sending the country’s shares lower and benchmark bond yields higher.

As leader of the largest party, Rajoy gets first chance to try to reach an agreement with other parties that would allow him to govern. But the Socialists and Podemos quickly said that they would reject a new government led by the 60-year-old Rajoy.

“Podemos would not permit a PP government, either actively or passively,” Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias told reporters, meaning that his party will neither vote for PP rule nor abstain in a parliamentary vote on a new government.

Senior Socialist official Cesar Luena said his party would vote ‘no’ to a government headed by Rajoy and the PP.

Left-wing option

The two left-wing parties won 159 seats between them in the 350-seat parliament, and with Catalan nationalists likely to join them in opposing the PP, it appears to make it virtually impossible for the PP, which won 123 seats, to construct a majority.

That could open the prospect of a left-wing coalition, similar to what happened in neighbouring Portugal, where the incumbent conservatives won an October election but a Socialist government backed by far-left parties was sworn in.

However, it is not easy for the left-wing parties to build a majority either.

Albert Rivera, leader of business-friendly Ciudadanos, which won 40 seats in parliament, came out in support of a PP minority government, which would negotiate with Ciudadanos, the Socialists and Podemos to support it in votes on different laws.

Rivera said a left-wing coalition of up to 11 parties would not be viable.

“Spain cannot allow itself to be Greece, Spain cannot allow itself to be a chaotic country,” he told Telecinco TV.

A top PP official said the negotiations could undermine Spain’s fledgling economic recovery. The country is now one of the fastest-growing economies in the euro zone after a long financial crisis, though unemployment remains above 20 percent.

“I am asking everyone to show responsibility, because the stability of Spain is at stake, progress in the economic recovery is at stake,” the PP’s Fernando Martinez-Maillo told Cadena Ser radio.

Ratings agency Moody’s said the political uncertainty could put the brakes on a long-awaited rating upgrade.

Reflecting the concerns of foreign investors, Markus Kerber, director-general of the BDI Federation of German Industries, urged Spain’s new government to “stay the course” on economic policy.

The close result magnifies the importance of small separatist parties from Catalonia, which could try to extract concessions such as the promise of an independence referendum as the price for their support.

Also at stake is whether Spain continues to follow the belt-tightening measures to cut its budget deficit that the PP credits for helping end the recession.

Both Podemos and the Socialists have pledged to slow the pace of deficit-cutting if they gain power.