Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

A Brief History Of The Shiite-Sunni Conflict – Analysis

0
0

By Alessandro Bruno

The division between Shiites and Sunnis has served to justify many wars and revolutions, including the ongoing wars in Syria and Yemen, which now have an even greater potential of spreading to other parts of the Middle East.

The 47 executions for terrorism and sedition in Saudi Arabia, which included the killing of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who was guilty only of having insulted the Saudi monarchy – he committed no violent crime whatsoever – have exacerbated the already high tension between Sunnis and Shiites. The West is more of a bystander, even though Western governments have tended to favor Saudi Arabia at the official level in this clash.

The Sunni-Shiite dispute, it should be noted, originated after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD, but over the centuries it has become increasingly political, especially after the 1979 revolution in Iran, which was ideologically manipulated by Ayatollah Khomeini. Thus, in recent decades, countries belonging to the Sunni bloc led by Saudi Arabia have struggled with the Iran-led Shiite bloc over regional hegemony in the Middle East.

This is at the root of many of the wars that have inflamed the whole area. The break between Shiites and Sunnis is related to the problem of succession after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. Those who would later be known as Sunnis (from ‘Sunna,’ one of the sacred texts of Islam, including all the Hadith – the deeds and interpretations of the Qur’an by Muhammad) believed that Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s father-in-law and his chief advisor was the rightful successor. Indeed, he became the first Caliph (meaning successor) of Islam and Sunnis now represent, including the various currents, some 80% of all Muslims.

On the other side, the Shiites, from a contraction of the word construct “shī’at’Alí” (supporters – or party – of Ali), proposed Ali as the true successor to Muhammad because he was a blood relative of the deceased prophet. Shiites account for 20% of the Muslim world. They identify in the succession of Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), the Prophet’s cousin and son in law, who would later became the fourth Caliph.

After years of clashes that saw the Sunni wing prevail, although Ali did rule for a few years, the final break between the two camps occurred in 680 AD at the Battle of Karbala in present day Iraq, when the Umayyad troops, loyal to the then Sunni Caliph, killed Hussein, the son of Ali. Shiites remained tied to the latter’s line of succession by declaring their loyalty to their Imam and twelve of his descendants – the Imams.

This division is the cause of the differences that still characterize the religious clash between Sunnis and Shiites. The contrast between these two different religious interpretations has widened from a purely ideological and religious realm to a geopolitical one – especially over the past four decades. The division within the Islamic religion is clear even at the regional level, especially in the Middle East, and is often used to justify wars and power struggles between different states.

The Sunni axis, led by Saudi Arabia, is supported mainly by petro-monarchies of the Gulf and Western powers – even if reluctantly. The Shiite Crescent is led by Iran and has as its main satellites Syria, Lebanon through Hezbollah, and significant segments of the populations of Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen. There is also an important Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia, which has become increasingly active in recent years, demanding more rights.

The problem in Saudi Arabia is that not only is it a Sunni state; it is a Wahhabi state. Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative current that insists on a literal interpretation of the sacred texts is the centerpiece of the Saudi state. Wahhabism is also at the root of radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaida and Islamic State. To better understand the significance and impact of Wahhabism, imagine, if a Christian sect insisted on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then took hold of political power…

Iran, the country that has protested the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr on January 2, is the head of the Shiite religious coalition. In reality, it is far more of a political and strategic coalition that includes Syria, which since 1970 is ruled by the al-Assad family – members of the Alawi Shiite sect, though entirely secular in the way they exercised power.

From the Syrian civil war to uprisings in Yemen and the Iraq conflict, it’s clear that religion is still being used as a pretext for power politics. Eight years of Shiite political leadership following the US invasion of Iraq have worsened tensions between Shiites and Sunnis there. This favored the sectarian fighting that left the conflict vulnerable to such radical groups as ISIS (now Islamic State), which benefited from the organizational capabilities of former Baathists soldiers from Saddam’s army (where most officers were Sunni).

The Saudi execution of Sheikh al-Nimr fits into this larger context in the same way that a match fits into a powder keg. Islamic State might be the biggest beneficiary as the risk of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence spreads throughout the region and into parts of Saudi Arabia and the other petro-monarchies themselves.

Where the EU is concerned, apart from any additional military burdens in the region, is the potential for new flows of refugees that could far outpace and outnumber current estimates. Apart from the inevitable costs, EU citizens might become more reluctant to support refugee intake policies, weakening political links like the Schengen zone. In other words, the Middle East refugee crisis risks breaking important layers of the European Union, even as it generates costs that its citizens are reluctant to endure.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com


North Korea’s Nuclear Test Deepens Chinese Dilemma – Analysis

0
0

North Korea’s Kim regime openly challenges its leading benefactor, China, by claiming miniature hydrogen bomb test.

By Shim Jae Hoon*

North Korea again surprised the world on January 6 by claiming that it tested a miniature hydrogen bomb. While the actual type of bomb has yet to be confirmed, news of the test sent shockwaves reverberating around the world, especially for North Korea’s lead ally, China. By defying China’s explicit advice against further nuclear tests and declining to provide prior warning, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has openly challenged Beijing. China though, despite annoyance, is unlikely to punish North Korea for fear of harming its long-term strategic interests.

While the strategic challenge to the region remains clear, South Korean officials suggest the North Korean claim of having detonated a hydrogen bomb device should not lead to panic. Government scientists in Seoul do not rule out the possibility of North Koreans mixing hydrogen isotopes in the bomb, thus partly justifying the claim that it was a miniaturized hydrogen device.

Kim left Chinese officials completely in the dark this time, demonstrating his displeasure over a number of developments poisoning bilateral ties, such as China’s strong pressure on the nuclear issue and support for UN sanctions against North Korea. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Beijing will summon the North Korean ambassador to lodge a formal protest about the test.

The thrust of Pyongyang’s message seems to be more political than any indication of maturity in Pyongyang’s nuclear fusion technology. And it appears directed at China as a gesture of defiance and to pressure the United States to negotiate with North Korea as was done with nuclear-arms capable Iran. Official television news announcing the test displayed Kim’s handwritten authorization for the test signed on 15 December, just three days after Kim’s pop music band abruptly left Beijing before a premiere, complaining about China’s alleged attempt to change the repertoire glorifying the dictator and his nuclear bomb threats.

Chinese officials watching the band’s rehearsals are reported to have advised against the band’s video backdrop showing nuclear tests and a mock missile attack targeting the United States. The band leader is reported to have panicked, insisting that not one line could be changed without the dictator’s approval.

The band’s visit was planned as a harbinger of improved relations, including Kim’s first official visit since he came to power in December 2011. That trip appears in jeopardy.

Even so, the nuclear challenge isn’t expected to lighten the weight of China’s historical dilemma on its relations with North Korea. While the cost of maintaining relations with its chief client state remains considerable in terms of political irritation and economic aid, China can ill afford to abandon Pyongyang for historic and geopolitical reasons. The two countries share a 1300-kilometer border along China’s strategic northeastern region, and China fought against the United States during the 1950 Korean War, to keep the North from being reunified under South Korean control.

China–North Korea relations were being severely tested even before the latest nuclear gambit. Commenting on the state of affairs between Beijing and Pyongyang, former South Korean ambassador to China Kwon Yong Se observed during a television interview: “Beijing-Pyongyang relations are far worse than I had thought… China is quite at a loss as to how to respond.” The tensions were hinted at several years ago, when an editor of a Chinese Communist Party publication in Beijing was fired for writing a commentary suggesting it was time for China to cut ties with North Korea.

China’s ambiguity does not mean it has no leverage on the Pyongyang regime. Kim depends on China for food and energy shortages. As it faces another year of bad crops caused by a devastating drought in 2015, the North’s dependence on Beijing for food aid has grown. For China, the problem lies with the implications of its client state moving away from its sphere of influence.

Already, Beijing’s ever closer economic and diplomatic relations with South Korea have antagonized Pyongyang, prompting the regime to resort to provocations to attract attention. For China, North Korea’s worth is measured by its capacity for trouble-making.

On the wider issue of regional security, South Korea, Japan and the United States are equally concerned about Kim’s continuing pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles. While the regime continues to test a variety of short- and medium-range missiles, Joseph Bermudez, a top US expert on North Korean military, recently suggested that Kim is well on the way to developing submarine-launched ballistic missiles. In direct response to missile threats, the United States has proposed deploying Thaad, a Terminal High Altitude Air Defense anti-missile system in South Korea, presenting strategic implications for China. Alarmed by the prospect of US Thaad deployment near its borders, Beijing is pressuring Seoul to reject the US bid. Meanwhile, resolution of the dispute between Japan and South Korea over comfort women during World War II has allowed the US to firm up its alliances with Seoul and Tokyo. That gives China little room for tolerating Pyongyang’s dangerous nuclear challenges.

This strategic calculation may prompt China to reconsider its traditional concept of regarding North Korea as a tolerable burden. But only to a small extent. Few analysts in Seoul suggest that China can significantly alter its existing relations with North Korea given the weight of historical links and strategic interests. China’s official Global Times newspaper underscored this point on 11 December: “[T]he bilateral bond is not forged by minor details, but has strong strategies within. History and geopolitics are driving [North Korea and China] together, instead of pulling them apart.” The paper added, “It is impossible for a clean break to happen between the two, and this is becoming increasingly clear.”

While a clean break is unlikely, China must also mind its growing relations with South Korea. In recent years, Presidents Park Geun Hye and Xi Jinping have formulated close working relations, with Park joining China’s Victory March celebrating the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two. Park was among the early supporters of the China-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank despite Washington’s negative stance. The two countries have signed and ratified a free trade agreement, removing tariffs from most of manufactured goods.

Given such interlinking interests, Beijing is expected to continue supporting Pyongyang as long as it doesn’t deviate significantly from the status quo. China is signaling readiness to welcome Kim when he is ready to make his first official visit. This will likely occur shortly before May, when Kim is holding a party congress, another rite of passage for the young Great Leader.

For the time being, geopolitics is an overriding consideration for China as any serious internal trouble in North Korea could endanger security of the peninsula. The Korean Peninsula is the only spot on China’s map directly open to cross-border projection of US military forces. The strategic buffer North Korea provides makes it virtually impossible for Beijing to take any option that could change Pyongyang’s internal political disposition at the risk of creating huge disturbance. China finds itself in a proverbial place between the devil and the deep sea.

*Shim Jae Joon is a journalist based in Seoul.

Trump For President? – OpEd

0
0

German political commentators are still grappling with the Trump phenomenon. Nobody takes him really seriously or sees him as the next US President. No one within the German political class has spoken positively about Trump. They rather ask, who can stop him?

Donald Trump’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 starts to disturb the power brokers of the Republican party machine. They are already thinking how they can prevent Trump’s ascendance if he should continue his triumph in the primaries. For these string-pullers, Trump is too independent and is no part of Washington’s venal political community.

Trump’s direct and unpretentious style to deal with sensitive political issues irritates the media class, because he couldn’t care less about the usual political jargon. He talks about politically sensitive issues on a saloon bar level. Many of Trump’s political statements are abysmal; nonetheless, it seems as if ordinary folks like them.

So far, many political commentators are all for Clinton because the other Republican candidates are lacking any distinctive image. Even Jeb Bush, the younger brother of former President George W., seems having no chance, although he was to begin with praised. He belonged to those Republicans who made a pilgrimage to casino-mogul Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas in order to pledge an oath of allegiance to Israel. Hillary Clinton pledged her own Israel loyalty to Haim Saban, the Media mogul, who supports the Democratic Party. Both multi-billionaires seem to divide their labor between themselves when it comes to Israel. Sheldon Adelson buys off Republican candidates and Saban buys Democratic ones, except for Donald Trump. Trump’s greatest advantage towards the other candidates is his financial independence. He is not in the pocket of the Zionist lobby.

Beginning of last December, Donald Trump told a Republican Jewish Coalition funded by Adelson, that he can’t be bought. “You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money”, he said. In his speech, for which he was heckled, he attacked Jeb Bush for taking money from the Lobby and Mario Rubio, the senator from Florida and a former Jeb Bush protégé, for his statement that Trump shouldn’t question “Israel’s commitment to peace”. Two weeks later, Trump said about Rubio that Adelson would mould him into a “perfect little puppet”.

In every respect, the most checkered candidate in the race seems Hillary Clinton. She is the favorite of the war-prone Ziocons who unconditionally support Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran. These people haven’t given up their efforts to undo the nuclear deal with Iran. The hawkish Clinton has already mildly distanced herself from the deal. Few years ago she threatened Iran with total “obliteration” if that country would attack Israel with its non-existing nuclear weapons.

Hillary Clinton’s record as Secretary of State is highly controversial, to put it mildly. Together with Samantha Power and Susan Rice, they pushed President Obama to intervene in Libya and topple its leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi. She is infamous for her frivolous statement about the lynching of Gaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”1

For the Ziocons and the far-right wing Netanyahu government, the hawkish Clinton would be the best of all candidates. Her voting record on Israel and the attack on Iraq plus her tough stance on Iran is going to make her the Lobby’s favorite. She supports the Zionist separation wall in Israel but opposes Trump’s and Ted Cruz’ call for a wall along the Mexican-American border. At the latest Brookings institution’s Saban Forum, she delivered an embarrassingly pro-Israel speech saying, inter alia, that her first act as U. S. President would be an invitation to Netanyahu. She also made Haim Saban a favor by penning an anti-BDS letter. With such a record, the blessings of the Zionist lobby is certain.

Having watched the debate of the Republican candidates, I felt like seeing a remake of the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

How they propose to handle the West’s instigated civil war in Syria or to deal with Putin’s Russia is reckless and horrifying.

In an interview with “Esquire”2 in 2004, when the Iraq war was unfolding, Trump admitted that the U. S. had created a total mess, and the war didn’t make any sense. “Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy … Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over … What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!”

Had the American political class in 2004 already followed Trump’s realism, the country would be in better shape.

Notes:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
2. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/interviews/a37230/donald-trump-esquire-cover-story-august-2004/

Nepal: Mainstream Parties Should Give Up Arrogance And Find Solution – Analysis

0
0

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Disturbing news continue to come from Nepal. The Ruling Parties are taking their own their own time to file the constitutional amendments. The Madhesi groups having rejected the amendments are also prolonging their agitation.

Protests turned violent in Terai and one of the leaders of the Nepal Sadhbhavana party was badly injured. State-sponsored anti Indian protests continue and in one or two instances offices of Indian projects were bombed. The Terai agitation found fresh support from one of the leading parties from Bihar- the RJD and this is not a good sign. Some youths in Terai were arrested recently for acts of subversion as they called for an independent Madhes. All in all the situation is very disquieting.

Meanwhile Rambo Oli continues with his cabinet expansion with no work being done by any one. The Jumbo cabinet has 6 Deputy prime ministers, 21 ministers,9 state ministers and two asst. ministers. Departments are being sliced to provide for the new comers.

Foot Dragging by the Ruling Parties on Constitutional Amendments

The Parliament failed to commence discussions on the constitutional amendments for want of a quorum. This was on 28th December. There were hardly 124 members against the minimum of 149 required for the session to discuss the issue. This only shows the mind set of the ruling parties and even the Nepali Congress in moving the amendments.

The Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister admitted on 31st December that they have deliberately slowed down the process. His contention was that the Morcha (SLMM- Madhes Group) should table its own amendment or should take ownership of the existing amendments. A tall order indeed when the Morcha had already rejected the amendments and wanted their 11 point demand to be considered first.

Morcha’s Response

One of the Morcha’s leaders and perhaps the most reasonable one-Mahant Thakur said that on the most contested issue of redrawing of federal boundaries, the Morcha has agreed in principle to the redrawing of federal boundaries through a political process later. But he wanted a respectable amendment bill before it could consider it. It looks that the ruling parties particularly the UML is unwilling to concede even this and this suits the Maoists too.

As expected, the UDMF (United Democratic Madhesi Front) took a hardened stand and said that the group will neither take part in deliberations on constitutional amendments nor relax the on going agitation till its demands are met.

The rigid stand taken by the major parties- UML, NC and CPN M that they would push or the constitutional bill through the Parliament even without the support of the Madhesi groups has further angered the Madhesi leaders. Mahant Thakur’s response was that the chances of an agreement are “slim.”

Violence in Terai

Already 53 people have died in the agitation. The Police for the fist time instead of shooting at the heads of agitators shot in the air to drive off the agitators.

Protests turned violent in several districts of Madhes. Many agitators carrying batons resorted to vandalism. Police had to fire in the air in Kalaiya – Bara district to disperse violent agitators.

“Baton Rallies” were carried out in Biratnagar, Mahottari, Siraha and Saptari districts. Clashes between the Police and the agitators took place at Inaruwa (Sunsari Dt) when the Dy. Prime Minister Gachhadar tried to address a meeting. Nine persons were injured.

Ex Minister and one of the leaders of agitating Sadbhavana party- Rajendra Mahato was badly hurt by Police action in a protest he led on the Jogbani border on 26th December. Mahato has been airlifted to Delhi for further treatment.

Upendra Yadav, another senior leader of the Madhes group declared that the Madhesi demand will be addressed through “street protests.”

Now the school children are getting involved. On 26th December, the school children in Birgunj took out a massive rally. They carried placards protesting against the police authorities on the UDMF protestors. Two days later thousands of school children followed it up with massive rallies and shouting slogans in Bara, Parsa, Rautahat, Saptari and Sunsari districts.

Disturbing Trends

  • Involving school children is not a good idea and it is hoped that the Madhesi leaders realise the long term consequences. The Nepal National Human Rights Commission Chairperson Mohana Adhikari expressed concern over using children in protest marches.
  • The ruling party members both the UML and the Maoists are carrying on a vicious propaganda against India. The result has been that some Indian establishments are being targeted. Unidentified persons suspected to be Maoists threw a bomb at the office of GMR energy on the evening of 5th January. Last month a similar attack took place GMR’s project site in Surkhet district.
  • For the first time, a leading political party in Bihar has openly come out in support of the protests of the Madhes groups. RJD Vice President and former Union Minister Raghubandh Singh declared that the Madhesi issue is no longer an internal matter of Nepal. He called on the Centre in Delhi to intervene and end the dead lock.

Meantime PM Oli continues to sit on his high perch and does not seem to be concerned about the serious consequences that may occur if the agitation continues. His rigid stand may cause permanent damage to Indo-Nepal relations.

Iran: Lawmaker Claims US Behind Saudi Arabia Targeting Iran’s Embassy In Yemen

0
0

By Khalid Kazimov

An Iranian lawmaker has accused the US of provoking Saudi Arabia to target the Islamic Republic’s embassy in Sanaa, Yemen.

“The recent hostile actions taken by Saudi Arabia against the Islamic Republic of Iran appear to be a result of the US and its allies’ policies to create a crisis. Otherwise Saudi Arabia alone would not behave in such an impudent way,” Mohammad Reza Mohseni Sani, an Iranian MP, told Trend Jan. 7.

He expressed hope that Yemeni people will respond properly to the Saudi airstrike on Iranian embassy in Sanaa.

“Saudi Arabia has taken the measure in Yemen so that the Islamic Republic of Iran would respond to the attack through Yemen,” he added.

Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesman Hossein Jaber Ansari said Jan. 7 the country’s embassy in Sanaa was hit in an airstrike by Saudi Arabia.

Several guards of the embassy were injured in the airstrike and the embassy building was also damaged in the attack, Iran’s state run TV channel IRINN reported.

Ansari, meanwhile, neither provided details about the attack, nor said when the attack was carried out.

Over the past few days, the relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia deteriorated following the kingdom’s execution of a prominent Shia cleric, Nimr al-Nimr, on Jan. 2.

Reacting to al-Nimr’s execution, a group of hardline Iranians stormed Saudi embassy in Tehran, smashing furniture and setting fire to the building before being dispersed by police.

Officially, Iran expressed strong protest regarding the execution, and the fragile relations between the two countries started going even further downhill from there.

Earlier in March 2015, a Saudi-led coalition launched airstrikes against Shia backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

US Condems Terrorist Bombings In Libya

0
0

The United States strongly condemned the Thursday bombing at a security training center in Zliten, Libya, as well as the attacks since January 4 on the oil terminals in Es Sidra and Ras Lanouf.

According to US State Department spokesperson John Kirby, “the attack – which targeted young people attending a graduation ceremony- reportedly killed as many as 65 people and injured many others. We extend our condolences to the families of those killed and injured. Violent extremists including ISIL-affiliated groups threaten all Libyans throughout the country. With their attacks on oil fields, they are threatening resources that belong to the Libyan people and that all Libyans must strive to protect for future generations.”

Kirby said these incidents stress again the urgent need for Libya’s new leaders to formalize the Government of National Accord (GNA), as outlined in the Libyan Political Agreement.

“This is a vital step to address the country’s critical humanitarian, economic, and security challenges,” Kirby said.

“The United States stands ready to help the new Presidency Council and other Libyan leaders implement the Libyan Political Agreement. We are committed to providing the unified government full political backing and technical, economic, security and counter-terrorism assistance,” Kirby said.

The Recent Death Sentences In Saudi Arabia – Analysis

0
0

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

On January 3, 2016 Saudi Arabia sentenced to death, among others, Nimr al Nimr, aged 56, the Shi’ite Imam on its territory, and the Head of Al Qaeda, Faris Al Zahrani.

The condemnation of Nimr al Nimr had been confirmed by the Supreme Court last October for seeking “foreign meddling” in Saudi Arabia, “disobeying” its rulers and “taking up arms against the security forces”.

In 2011 Nimr, the spiritual leader of the two million Shi’ites living in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province – very rich in oil – had asked for the secession of its province from the Wahhabi Kingdom of the Al Saud family and its merger with Bahrain when, at that time, the Emirate was witnessing the insurgency of the Shi’ite majority against the Al Khalifa’ Sunni family, who rules it with a small minority of officials linked to Saudi Arabia.

Most of the 47 convicts executed were members of the core group of Al Qaeda operating in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and were held accountable for acts of terrorism in Saudi Arabia from 2003 to 2006.

Among others, an Egyptian citizen and a citizen from Chad were executed.

Nimr Al Nimr’s brother launched an appeal for calm to the Shi’ites of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in the Eastern provinces and in the other Shi’ite countries of the region.

Before being executed, Nimr had studied in Qom and was the leader of the many Shi’ite militants living in the city of Qatif, but he never condemned the Saudi royal family.

The Imam of the “Party of Ali” had been arrested in 2012 and his trial had been condemned as irregular by many NGOs and most international organizations for human rights.

Everyone expected that King Salman, who rose to power after the death of his half-brother Abdullah in January 2015, wanted to show clemency, but this did not happen. Upon Nimr’s death, Saudi Arabia decreed the end of the “ceasefire” in force since December 15, 2015 in Yemen.

This was obviously a strategic goal: to deprive of morale the Houthi Shi’ite guerrillas in the clash with the pro-Saudi Yemen, which is now the “Vietnam of Saudi Arabia” and, in the event of Shi’ites’ victory, will allow to control the primary strategic and economic area of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Everything becomes clear if we examine the strategic equation of the Wahhabi Kingdom.

Firstly, with this death sentence of the Shi’ite Imam, Saudi Arabia forces the United States to choose between a continuation of the P5 + 1 Agreement with Iran and the strategic and financial connection with the Saudi Kingdom.

The strategic factor is well-known, considering that the US-Saudi alliance is the axis of the American presence in the Middle East, along with the agreement between the United States and Israel.

The financial connection has been operating since the agreement reached after the Yom Kippur War between the US banks and Saudi Arabia for the confidential recycling of petrodollars.

When their amount decreases, as now happens with the fall in the oil barrel price, the Saudi-US agreement loses importance, while, in fact, the United States seem to create a system of balance between the Shi’ite Iran and the Sunni world linked to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is weakening OPEC, for the excellent reason that now the Viennese agency is holding together the oil interests of two mortal enemies, namely the Shi’ites and the Sunnis. It is not unlikely for Saudi Arabia to soon revive the Sunni alliance, within OPEC, called OAPEC, the organization based in Kuwait, which was founded in 1968 by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and, coincidentally, Libya, to avoid political embargos after the “Six-Day War”.

That is a good hypothesis to clarify the future evolution of the still de facto “double” government currently operating in Libya.

Another strategic equation is related to the different configuration of the Shi’ite-Sunni conflict in the Greater Middle East: the significant minorities of the “Party of Ali” are everywhere, but they are in power only in Iran, while in Turkey they account for 20% (and we will soon witness the anti-Shi’ite fight operating in Turkey). In Iran the Shi’ites are 87% of the population; in the Lebanon the Party of Ali accounts for 47% (and the Sunnis account for 24%) and in Syria the true Shiites are 15%, apart from the Alawites who came to power with the Assads that the Imam Mussa Sadr, the founder of the “Amal” Party in the Lebanon, declared to be “true Shi’ites”, before disappearing in Tripoli, Libya, on August 31, 1978.

In Egypt the Shi’ites account for 3%, in Yemen 44%, in Bahrain 73%, in Kuwait 21%, in Qatar 18% and in Oman, the Emirate less prone to follow Saudi orders, the Shi’ites account for 5%.

Aside from the rule of taqiyya, the official denial of one’s own faith in the Imam Ali, which is permitted by the Shi’ite religious rules, the Shi’ites total 121 million people, while Sunnis are 191 million people.

In all likelihood, however, Iran will operate for the autonomy of the Amazigh movement, the Berbers in Libya who operate, in the region of Benghazi, against the Islamists and the Lebanese Hezbollah, who already operate in favor of Assad’s forces in Syria.

After the lifting of sanctions, the “sale and spinning” to the naïve West of its ambiguous policies to reduce nuclear weapons, Iran has the opportunity and the political lucidity to mobilize – if not now, in the near future – the significant Shi’ite minorities in all Sunni-ruled nations.

For Iran, too, it is a goal of hegemony over crude oil which works well precisely when the oil barrel price goes down and the geopolitical choices become – for some countries – a matter of life and death.

A struggle for possible hegemony which regards the second strategic factor, namely the “taking” of oil wells of either party, in a war which, for the time being, is a war of attrition (the Houthis in Yemen) and later, if pacification in Syria is in favor of Assad and Russia, it will turn into an overt and “traditional” war.

Russia has a dual interest, which is to maintain its presence in the Mediterranean region and to conquer a global interdiction power in the area that the United States are abandoning, completely bitten by their shale oil bug. Restricting NATO southward, towards its “jugular vein” in the Middle East, and excluding the Atlantic Alliance from the land corridor stretching from Ukraine to Georgia up to Poland. Russia aims at the land and sea lines which seal the Mediterranean region and subject it to the Russian Federation’s command and rule.

The Russian Federation wants the whole Mediterranean region and, in fact, with some sort of dullness and hard-headedness, NATO supports Turkey also after the shooting down of the Russian Sukhoi 24 aircraft which, indeed, was a way to call all the Atlantic Alliance to the war against Russia.

A goal only partially reached, considering that SHAPE – despite all possible naivety – did not follow Turkey in all its options against Russia in favor of its “Turkmen” guerrillas, which are a project of hegemony over the region when the Sunnis, who are a majority in Syria, are free from the Assad family and, hence, when Turkey’s hegemony may encompass all the populations of Turkish origin up to the Xing Kiang.

Nevertheless it shall face China there, which will not allow the presence of a NATO country along its borders – that is precisely the reason why the United States support Turkey.

Israel is still the strategic big winner in the region: it has witnessed a considerable reduction of Syrian pressure on the Golan Heights and it also sees the crisis of the Islamic world. Currently almost all Lebanese Hezbollah are in Syria, some top secret contacts with Saudi Arabia are already operating against Iran, which will launch its first nuclear bomb against what Tehran calls “the Zionist entity”.

All local players are weakening, but I imagine that Israel is arming against whoever of the two will win, even though today it looks as if it is going to be a long and complex war.

About the author:
*Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori
is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York.

He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and Khashoggi Holding’s advisor.

In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Bangladesh’s Ansarullah Bangla Team – Analysis

0
0

Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) has emerged as a radical Islamist group with a limited operational objective of targeting secular bloggers in Bangladesh. However, behind its attacks on and killings of these bloggers, is its larger intent of establishing Islamic rule in the country and being part of the global jihad.

By Surya Valliappan Krishna*

Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) emerged first as Jama’atul Muslemin in 2007. Until 2013, the group was believed to be extinct, before its re-emergence as the ABT. The group effectively uses the online medium to promote extremist ideas and messages from al-Qaeda preachers such as late Anwar al-Awlaki with an objective of radicalising Bangladeshi youth and encourage their participation in local Jihad.

The leader of ABT, Mufti Jasimuddin Rahmani, was arrested on 12 August 2013 along with 30 members of the outfit from the southern Barguna district for inciting people to commit violent Jihad. On 25 May 2015, the group was banned under anti terrorism laws. Unfazed by the ban, the ABT issued death threats to more than 10 individuals since including the Junior Minister for Home Affairs, Asaduzzam Khan Kamal. In September 2015, acting chief of ABT, Muhammed Abul Bashar was arrested along with two other ABT cadres. The Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) sources in Bangladesh said that Bashar was attempting to flee the country.

The group is famously known for its targeting of secular bloggers in Bangladesh since 2013. In February 2013, ABT activists hacked to death Ahmed Rajib Haider, a secular blogger. Haldar had organised the ‘Shahbagh youth protest’, demanding maximum penalty for the 1971 war criminals. ABT’s subsequent targets included five persons. US citizen Avijit Roy was the founder of the atheist website Mukto Mona. On 26 February 2015, as he was returning from a book fair in capital Dhaka, he was pulled from a rickshaw and killed. Washiqur Rahman was a blogger known for his atheist views; on 30 March 2015 he was hacked to death near his home in Dhaka. Ananta Bijoy Das, a banker who wrote blogs for the Mukto Mona website run by Avijit, was attacked and hacked to death by masked ABT cadres on 12 May 2015 in north eastern Sylhet city. Niloy Chakrabarti (who wrote under the pen name Niloy Neel) and publisher Faisal Arefin Dipan, who published a bestselling book by Avijit Roy were killed in Dhaka in August and October 2015 respectively. In 2015, Rahmani had ordered the murders of the bloggers from his jail cell, a message that Bashar had taken to the outfit’s followers, the RAB sources have said. On 31 December 2015, two former private university students- Md Faisal Bin Nayem alias Dweep and absconding Redwanul Azad Rana were sentenced to death by a court for killing Ahmed Rajib Haider. The court also found Mufti Jasim Uddin Rahmani and five others guilty. Rahmani was given five years of jail and Taka 2,000 in fine with two months of additional imprisonment in default.

Several other bloggers were put in the hit list published by the group online on 23 September 2015. The list included nine persons based in the UK, seven in Germany, two in the United States, one each in Canada and Sweden. The ABT called for cancellation of their Bangladeshi citizenship as they are “enemies of Islam and [Muslim religious] education, atheists, apostates, unbelievers, anti-Islamic bloggers, and agents of India.” The ABT clearly said that these bloggers “will be killed wherever they can be found in the Almighty’s world”.

Killings of the bloggers in Bangladesh not only defined the ABT as a brutal force of intolerance but also gathered support for the upholding of personal views and rights with the social media community particularly playing vanguards of the secular atheist blogging community. However, at the same time, the government in Bangladesh curiously asked the bloggers to ‘limit’ their writings as not to affect the religious sentiments of the people.

The ABT, due to its proximity with the Ansar ul-Islam, is believed to have linkages with the al-Qaeda. Ansar ul-Islam, formed by the followers of an Afghan Sufi preacher, Pir Saifur Rehman in 2004 to counter the Lashkar-e-Islam formed by Mufti Munir Shakir, a hard-line Sunni cleric who opposes Sufism, is one of the most violent factions of Pakistani Taliban and is part of the al-Qaeda network. While Rehman preached Brelvi Islam inspired by Sufism, Shakir advocated puritanical Deobandi Islam. The five ABT members who were arrested in March 2013 for murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider were praised on the al-Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Mujahideen media website as ‘five lions of the Ummah’. ABT translates al-Qaeda’s works in to Bengali for their local audience.

Educated youth belonging to the madrassas and other academic institutions remain ABT’s target for recruitment. ABT comprises of a group of tech-savy men who keep abreast of atheist writing and select targets, as well a group of foot soldiers who are willing to carry out violent attacks on people they believe violate religious norms. Touhidur Rahman, one of the men arrested for the attack on bloggers Avijit Roy and Anantha Bijoy Das was a British National of Bangladeshi origin. He claimed that upon his return to Bangladesh in 2012 he was inspired by the ABT and monitored the movements of the blogging community. Investigations revealed that the two men who murdered Washiqur Rahman and were arrested in March 2015 had never read his blog but nevertheless killed him for his writing. While unverifiable reports point at training imparted to some of the ABT members by the al-Qaeda members from Pakistan, the ABT’s wherewithal appears to have been augmented by the militants belonging to pro-al-Qaeda groups such as the outlawed Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and Harkat-ul-jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) joining the outfit.

The rhetoric of ABT isn’t drastically different from the radical Islamist groups around the world. The group openly labels democracy as anti-Islam and has even published a documentary titled ‘Eradicate Democracy’ which interprets democracy as being in direct conflict with Islamic principles. It further characterises political leaders as the main roots of all evil like murder and rape and exhorts people to “come out of the system and adopt jihad to free themselves from the social evils”. Terming a number of bloggers as anti-Islamic, the group calls them apostates and agents of India. Religious radicalism isn’t new to Bangladesh. However unlike the previous groups, the ABT focuses on selected targeting rather than mass attacks.

*Surya Valliappan Krishna is a project intern at Mantraya. A special mention to Ipshita Chakrabarti for helping out with Bengali translations. This brief has been published under Mantraya.org’s Mapping Terror & Insurgent Networks project.


There Would Have Been ‘Something Wrong’ If US Hadn’t Bugged Netanyahu – OpEd

0
0

When Republican Representative Devin Nunes informed the media that the House Intelligence Committee of which he is chairman will look into the Wall Street Journal report that the U.S. spied on (bugged) Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during the discussions and negotiations for a nuclear agreement with Iran, he said, “We’re going to play this right down the middle and determine whether or not somebody did something wrong.”

The case for the assertion proclaimed by my headline is as follows.

Though the White House declined as it always does to comment on specific intelligence activities carried out by the National Security Agency (NSA), a spokesman for it did say this. “The U.S. doesn’t spy overseas unless there’s a specific, validated national security reason to do so.” And this principle, the spokesman also emphasized, “applies both to world leaders and regular citizens.”

The truth is that the Obama administration’s decision to bug Netanyahu’s private conversations, including those he had with members of the U.S. Congress, was driven by genuine national security concerns.

The plain fact of the matter is that a nuclear agreement with Iran was in the real and best interests of all – America and the other members of the P5+1 and all the nations and peoples of the whole world including (although most of them are too brainwashed by Zionist propaganda to understand why) Israel’s Jews; and Netanyahu was plotting with the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress to prevent President Obama concluding an agreement.

That alone was enough to justify bugging Netanyahu’s private conversations but some in the Obama administration, including no doubt the president himself, had additional security concerns. They could not and did not rule out the possibility that a desperate Netanyahu might organize a false flag operation – an Israeli attack on American interests somewhere which, with the assistance of fabricated and planted evidence, would be blamed on Iran.

Devin has asked the director of National Intelligence and the head of the NSA to come to Capitol Hill next week to be questioned about the bugging.

It’s more than likely that some of Obama’s enemies in Congress will then go into battle with the argument that even if the president had a lawful and legitimate reason or reasons to bug Israel’s prime minister, the bugging should not have included listening to the conversations of members of Congress. That, some may assert, would be unconstitutional, an abuse of presidential power and raises the question of whether or not Obama should be impeached.

But such an argument could easily be dismissed for the nonsense it is.

Another plain fact is that those in Congress, mainly Republicans, who were conspiring with Netanyahu to prevent Obama reaching an agreement with Iran were putting Israel’s interests (Netanyahu’s conception of them) before America’s.

In other words they were traitors.

That being so the Obama administration would have been complicit by default in their treachery if it had not bugged the conversations members of Congress had with Netanyahu.

As Eamon Murphy commented in an article published by Mondoweiss, the picture that emerges of America’s special relationship with Israel is of “an alliance with a dark heart of cynicism, which has implications far beyond the concluded talks with Tehran.”

I agree but it has always been so. As I document through the three volumes of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, another plain fact is that no American president has ever trusted Israel’s leaders.

And the best of many examples of why not is what happened on 8 June 1967, the fourth day of the Six Days war of that year. (A war of Israeli aggression, not self-defence).

The Johnson administration gave Israel the green light to attack Egypt and only Egypt. The understanding conveyed to Israel was that it was not to grab the Jordanian West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights. At least some in the Johnson administration were aware that doing so was the intention of Israel’s one-eyed war lord of the time, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan.

It was mainly because some in the Johnson administration did not trust him that it stationed the American spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, off the Gaza Strip and Israel’s coast to listen Israeli military communications. The American assumption was that if Dayan ordered a redeployment of Israeli forces that indicated he was intending to take the West Bank (and after that the Golan Heights), the Liberty would send a warning message to prompt Johnson to telephone Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and say to him something like: “Don’t do it! Order your defense minister order to stop!”

Dayan was aware of that possible scenario and that’s why he ordered Israeli forces to attack the Liberty, killing 34 of its crew and wounding 171 as well as taking out its listening and communicating facilities. He needed the Johnson administration to be deaf to what he intended before it was too late for it to stop him.

I have often written and said that with enemies like the Arabs (regimes and elites) Israel doesn’t need friends.

I think it can also be said that with friends like the leaders of the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel, America doesn’t need enemies.

Facebook’s Free Basics: A Digital Apartheid – Analysis

0
0

By Ajey Lele

One ‘narrow’ way of analyzing the Facebook craze: it is a medium which essentially caters for two sets of people; one, who are keen to know what is happening others’ lives and two, who are keen to tell (flaunt) others about what is happening in their lives’! Over a period of time owners and administrators of Facebook have realized that there are other people in the world apart from these two categories, who are keen to use Facebook for its various useful apps (applications). Presently, many from the developing and least developed parts of the world do not have access to the internet. Hence, Facebook is keen to bring these ‘deprived’ people under an internet umbrella, largely controlled by them. Since, their target population is from the developing world, Facebook is found using internet philanthropy as a medium (read façade) to attract this new clientele with a concealed ‘profit’ agenda.

Internet.org was born during August 2013, when Facebook collaborated with some big businesses in mobile telephony like Samsung, Ericsson, and Nokia to provide affordable access to selected internet services with an aim to make internet available to underdeveloped, needy and poor states. Mostly, the states under this scheme were from parts of Africa, South America, Southeast and South Asia. Facebook claimed that they are providing internet services to the ‘have-nots’ via mobile telephony and Internet.org apps. However, they were handpicking internet services, thus leading to restricted access to the full potential of internet. To start with, it was immoral on the part of Facebook to use the word internet to describe their ‘apps’. This provided a wrong sense to the users who believed that they would be able to access the entire ‘spectrum’ of internet. The foremost criticism Internet.org received was about compromising on Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality allows the internet user to have full access to all content and applications irrespective of the source. It is about ensuring that there is no intentional effort to provide access to limited information by blocking particular products or websites (barring illegal sites). It is also about ensuring that no favoritism takes place in that various websites are accessible at the same speed. The idea is to treat all data as equal.

Since Internet.org faced disapproval from many quarters and came to be derided as a the “walled garden”, the Facebook has taken a corrective measure and has renamed it as Free Basics since September 2015, with a promise that there would be no filters to block any information. Facebook has claimed yet again that it is trying to provide ‘some’ connectivity to the internet deprived class. This implies that even now it is not the user but Facebook that would have a final say in what an individual would have access to. It has been reported that the mobile app of Free Basics features less than a 100th of the approximately 1 billion websites. Eventually, Facebook only acts as a gatekeeper and provides internet access based on its own terms and conditions (inclusive of pricing).

Free Basics actually leads to converting the internet, which is supposed to be a global public good, into a ‘controlled’ platform. For some this even amounts to compromising on their ‘human rights’. It may be noted that there is an increasing desire globally to associate internet availability with basic human rights and some discussion to that effect has taken place in the United Nations too . Presently, hosting a website and reading or downloading from website is a free process and there are no rules controlling it. Net neutrality is a must to maintain status quo. There is a growing fear that major business corporations could take over internet related services fully and this could impact governance, business, data availability, knowledge, scientific research, innovation, technology development etc. Presently, the basic problem is that there is no law on Net Neutrality.

Facebook is not the only entity trying to make the internet a saleable commodity, there are others too and they are trying to tap into the Indian market. India is a developing country with limited people (approximately 20%) having access to internet. Naturally, this is a large potential market and all efforts are on to grab this market. However, Facebook and others seem to have overlooked the fact that India may be developing country, but is an Information Technology (IT) powerhouse and one of the most ‘digitally conscious’ countries in the world. Hence, even though various market driven internet platforms have been launched in India, they face a significant amount of criticism and resistance.

To checkmate Facebook’s internet services plans, Airtel has launched (April 2015) its new Zero marketing platform that allows users to access apps of participating app developers at zero data charges. They have found support from companies like Flipkart. However, free access is limited to specific web portals and already some pricing scheme has been put in place. More importantly, various new and innovative technologies are also being offered to ensure that internet reaches the people in India’s inaccessible areas like desserts, mountains, glaciers, jungles etc. For example, Google is proposing to launch Project Loon, an experiment wherein air balloons would be used to beam internet down to remote locations. Private entrepreneurs like Space X would be using satellites to create an internet offering of their own. Facebook is proposing to use drone technology to ensure that internet reaches to signal shadow areas too. There are all innovative, workable and useful technologies; however they would be launched only if they serve the commercial interests of the companies, and would still deny full spectrum open internet accessibility.

It is important to appreciate that internet has multiple users and defence forces are one of them. Modern day warfare has significant dependence on internet. In a limited sense, the ongoing ‘battle’ may be about Free Basics but, the real challenge is to ensure that Indian armed forces which mostly operate in inhospitable regions do not get bogged down with a private agency providing limited internet services. The dream of ‘Digital India’ is also about ensuring that Indian armed forces are able to harmonise the Net Centric Warfare capabilities in the 21st century. Internet is critical to transform Net Centric Warfare concepts into operational capabilities. Naturally, they cannot afford to operate in a ‘controlled’ internet space.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/facebooks-free-basics_avlele_070116

Violent Radicalization Revisited: A Practice-Oriented Model – Analysis

0
0

By Daniel Koehler*

In the two years following the July 2005 attacks in London the term ‘radicalization’ entered the mainstream lexicon. Rarely used at all before 9/11, the term is now widely used to describe a process of individual evolution towards adopting certain ideas and sometimes the use of violence and terrorist tactics to achieve political goals. To what extent the use of violence is a necessary component of radicalization is highly debated among scholars and policy makers, which is why the differentiation between“violent” and “non-violent” radicalization has become common. In general, radicalization describes cognitive and behavioural components that may lead to a destructive or violent outcome. But only rarely have the mechanisms behind radicalization been described in a step by step process. As a result, practitioners and policy-makers generally lack a coherent understanding of what exactly happens during radicalization processes and why they can be so dangerous to societies. Indeed, it is not enough to say that “violent radicalization” is the process that turns individuals into terrorists or extremists. Instead, violent radicalization must be understood more precisely: as a process of ‘de-pluralization’ within an ideological framework that is incompatible with mainstream political culture and ideology.

Radicalization as de-pluralization

Given the need for a sharper conceptualization of the process, radicalization can be understood as a process of individual de-pluralization in terms of political concepts and values (e.g. justice, freedom, honour, violence, democracy). The more individuals have internalized the notion that no other alternative interpretations of their (prioritized) political concepts exist (or are relevant), the more we can speak of (and show) a degree of radicalization. This may happen with varying degrees of intellectual reflection, such as quoting a fascist thinker to explain behaviour or merely stating an intention to do something based on a certain cognitive framework or collective identity. This means, however, that a high level of radicalization does not necessarily imply a high level of violent behaviour or brutality. Radicalization in this sense is a normal social phenomenon — seen, for example, in sports, political movements or dietary preferences. Radicalization becomes problematic, however, when it is combined with ideologies that inherently deny individual freedom (or equal rights) to persons not part of the radical person’s in-group or that are otherwise ideologically incompatible with the surrounding mainstream political culture or ideology. Building on Michael Freeden’s seminal work on the topic , ideology can be understood as a clustered set of political concepts constituted around a problem definition, an offered solution or method, and a future vision of society.

In the beginning of a typical radicalization process, certain societal, political or religious problems are defined and contextualized within an individual’s or group’s background and experiences to connect wider, global problems with micro-social issues. By raising the perceived importance of a given problem, other competing issues – ranging from everyday tasks such as exams or work to social issues such as unemployment, drug addiction or childcare – gradually become irrelevant. This tends to be achieved through targeted propaganda invoking and effectively altering individual values or political concepts. Calls for action to address the problem are often accompanied by the suggestion that a decreasing number of viable solutions and methods are available to tackle it. In the context of a continuously praised vision of a better future, alternative methods, solutions, and scenarios are systematically superseded.

When combined with certain kinds of ideologies, de-pluralization not only alters priorities about problems, solutions and goals, but restructures individual worldviews by determining the meaning of political values and concepts, such as ‘freedom’, ‘honour’, and ‘justice’. A maximally de-pluralized (and thereby radicalized) group or individual only recognizes problems, solutions and future scenarios associated with a specific ideology and does not perceive alternative frames and interpretations of core political values. This erasure of competing issues makes the need to address the problem appear increasingly urgent. In order to resolve the pressure this creates, violence comes to seem not just rational but necessary, especially if notions of human inequality are inherent in the underlying ideology. This suggests that some radicalized individuals need to act and behave violently – that beyond a certain point, other options are not visible or feasible to them. In certain ideological contexts, therefore, de-pluralization creates a kind of ‘ticking time-bomb’: a tension between a rapidly decreasing number of alternatives to solve a given problem and the increasing intensity of ideological calls for action – a tension that violence ultimately becomes the only way to resolve.kohler1

De-radicalization and re-pluralization

If radicalization leading to acts of violence and terrorism is essentially a de-pluralization process, counter-measures must be based on a process of re-pluralization that relieves the tension between the ideological urgency to act and the lack of alternative solutions. Usually this means balancing the given problem in relation to other equally important issues, while increasing the perceived number of viable solutions. This allows the individual to reprioritize problems and to choose from a variety of equally valid solutions. It also encourages reflection about whether a certain course of action is absolutely necessary, providing room for further intervention. Through positive and supportive personal relationships, mentoring, capacity building, education and other related methods, de-radicalization programs can reverse the vicious circle described above. In general, finding ways to keep individual and group perceptions about potential solutions to particular problems readily available can make efforts to prevent violent extremism more effective. The most effective efforts will address both the problem definition and the perceived solutions without negating the fundamental claim that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.kohler2

Implications for policy

With the growing threat posed by foreign fighters returning from the Syrian/Iraqi conflict, many Western countries have favoured specialized de-radicalization programs to counter possible violent radicalization processes in their early stages. Some countries, including Sweden, Germany and Denmark, have long traditions of such programs, mostly targeting Far-Right extremism. Many of these programs, however, are not based on coherent theories and methodologies, and their impact is rarely if ever evaluated. Yet understanding the basic dynamics of radicalization and de-radicalization, as outlined above, is little more than a starting point for the work of highly trained and experienced de-radicalization experts. Currently, only a small number of specialized training courses and experts capable of evaluating these programs exists. This is unfortunate because practitioners and policy-makers need to know that violent radicalization is not a one-way street and can be reversed even in its advanced stages. If understood, designed and supported appropriately, specially trained experts and programs can powerfully counteract home-grown terrorism and radicalization.

*Daniel Koehler is the Director of the German Institute on Radicalization and De-radicalization Studies (GIRDS) . His research focus lies on right-wing terrorism, radicalization and de-radicalization. He has studied religious studies, political science and economics at Princeton University and the Freie Universität Berlin

Pakistan’s Doing Can Be Its Undoing: Web Of Financial Terror In Sub-Continent – Analysis

0
0

By Sanchita Bhattacharya*

The trail of financial terrorism in the Indian sub-continent has got the countries of Bangladesh, India and also Pakistan in this intricate web. In one such latest incident, Pakistan has withdrawn one of its diplomats from Bangladesh. Farina Arshad, Second Secretary at the Pakistan High Commission in Dhaka, was charged by Bangladeshi establishment in charges of financial terrorism. She was called, as reported on December 24, 2015.

Pakistan decided to withdraw the lady diplomat after the Bangladeshi authorities asked the diplomat to leave for reportedly having “extended financial support to a suspected militant who faces spying charges”. The police was quoted as saying that Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) militant, Idris Sheikh, alleged in a court in Dhaka that he had links with Arshad and that he was given 30,000 taka ($380). The information about Farina Arshad’s link to financing terrorism came during a strain in diplomatic ties between the two countries over Pakistan’s denial about committing genocide in Bangladesh during the 1971 War of Independence.

Moreover, as reported on December 23, 2015 several government leaders in Bangladesh, including ministers lashed out at Pakistan for “promoting militancy” in Bangladesh, with the Shipping Minister, Shahjahan Khan, saying: “Pakistan High Commission in Dhaka has become a den of militants”.

This is not the first time that such terror liaison has been unearthed in Bangladesh, directing towards Pakistan’s sinister involvement. Bangladesh earlier on January 31, 2015 expelled another Pakistani diplomat. Mohammad Mazhar Khan, attaché at the consular section of Pakistan High Commission in Dhaka, was an Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent, Bangladesh Foreign Ministry officials said. He had set up a wide network of producing and distributing fake Indian currency. Moreover, an intelligence report said Mazhar in collaboration with some colleagues at the High Commission used to channel the money earned through his currency scam to Bangladeshi militant organisations like Hizb ut-Tahir, Ansarullah Bangla Team and political outfit of Jamaat-e-Islami.

Arresting Pakistani citizen and seizing fake currency have become common phenomena in Bangladesh. In 2012, some Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) militants were arrested with foreign currency of Bangladeshi taka (currency) 10 crore. Three of them were Pakistanis. Similarly, Pakistani citizens Mohammad Danish, Sabbir and Bangladeshi Fatema Akhtar were arrested with 10 lakh fake Indian rupee on January 18, 2014. And on January 21, a Bangladeshi citizen named Zahid Hasan was arrested with 50 thousand forged Indian notes. Pakistani national Mohammad Imran was arrested at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport on January 15, 2015 with 80 lakh fake Indian rupee. He came to Bangladesh allegedly with fake passport and visa.

There is no doubt that India is suffering due to the nexus between Bangladeshi militants and their aides in Pakistan. Way back in its Annual Report of 2007-2008, India’s Union Home Ministry stated: “the hand of Pakistan-based terrorist organizations, LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and, increasingly of the Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI), known to have close links with the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has been observed in most cases” of terrorist attacks in India. New Delhi has also accused HuJI of providing grenades to the LeT in India, in addition to coordinating attacks in India with the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), the LeT and JeM.

As is evident, one of the dominant militant outfits of Bangladesh, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), a Deobandi group, is affiliated with the Pakistan-based HuJI, and was formed by 17 Bangladeshi mujahidin that returned from Afghanistan, allegedly with financial help from al-Qaida. Shahadat-e al Hikma (SAH) announced in 2003 that it planned to launch an armed struggle to turn Bangladesh into an Islamic state. It was promptly banned.

It is very interesting to note that while Pakistan is busy financing terror activities in other countries of the sub-continent and is also very much engaged in smuggling of fake currencies, the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) itself is devising policies to curb the menace of fake currency in its own country. As part of its campaign “Rupay ko Pehchano,” the SBP has developed and launched a total of five videos on the security features of currency notes. It has developed one video for Rs5,000, Rs1,000 and Rs500 notes each while another video sheds light on the security features of Rs10, Rs20, Rs50 and Rs100 notes. One video highlights the security features of all currency notes in circulation.

In addition, the SBP has launched a mobile application to inspect the currency note. The latest application easily identifies the fake currency note. “After a rising chorus of public complaints by people who unwittingly got duped into accepting these fake notes, the task for SBP was clear,” according to a report issued by SBP. Mobile app for iOS devices (iPad, iPhones) and Android educates the users about tell-tale signs behind a real and a fake Pakistani rupee note of any denomination.

Earlier, on October 6, 2015 SBP stated that the presence of counterfeit currency notes is an undeniable fact and primary responsibility to check their influx lies with law enforcement agencies. The SBP said it has adopted a three-pronged strategy: ensuring state-of-the-art security features in banknotes that are difficult to counterfeit; developing necessary capacity and infrastructure with banks to issue genuine and authenticated bank notes to the public; and creating awareness among the general public.

The problem of terror funding and circulation of counterfeit currency is not only crippling the economy of the sub-continent but financial fraud has become an important constituent of terrorism. Pakistan, on the one hand, is trying to spread the menace to other parts but there is no denying the fact that, on its domestic turf, the situation is gradually getting out of hand. The terror-finance is a major evil to deal with, and it won’t be wrong to say that Pakistan itself is now facing the brunt.

*Dr. Sanchita Bhattacharya is a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi. She can be reached at: editor@spsindia.in

EU’s Mogherini Tells China It Must Help Find Disappeared Hong Kong Publishers

0
0

By Matthew Tempest

(EurActiv) — EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has warned China it must help investigations into five Hong Kong publishers who have mysteriously disappeared, after publishing books critical of Beijing.

The five include two EU citizens, Gui Minhai of Sweden and Lee Po from Britain. The other three are Lui Bo, Zhang Zhiping, and Lin Rongji.

The five were part of the Mighty Current publishing house, which specialises in salacious exposes of mainland China’s political figures and corruption. Minhai was the first to disappear, in mid-October.

Under the “one country, two systems” legal system left behind by former imperial power Britain, Hong Kong enjoys more relaxed media freedoms from censorship than China.

While careful not to accuse China directly of being behind the disappearances, Mogherini said Friday (8 January) that “it would be a violation of the Basic Law if, as media allege, mainland [China] law enforcement agencies had been operating in Hong Kong. This would be inconsistent with the ‘one country two systems’ principle.”

Mogherini pointedly added, “The relevant authorities in Thailand, China and Hong Kong should investigate and clarify the circumstances of the disappearances in conformity with the rule of law.”

Perceived encroachment on Hong Kong’s freedoms by China lay behind last year’s so-called ‘Umbrella Revolution’, which saw tens of thousands come out onto the streets.

Mighty Current is both a publisher, and has its own bookstore. China’s state-run Global Times newspaper has accused the bookshop of having an “evil influence” and “maliciously fabricating” stories.

There has been speculation Mighty Current was about to publish a book on President Xi Jinping’s sex life.

Hong Kong ceased to be a British colony in 1997, when it was formally handed back to China.

Trump’s Syria Plan: ‘Let Russia Do It’– OpEd

0
0

Trump’s latest TV ad says it all, even before you listen. The caption is: Paid for by Donald J Trump, Inc., Approved by Donald Trump. It’s almost as if he’s running his campaign as a send-up of the other hopefuls, beholden to lobbyists and the mainstream media. The only one with name recognition is Jeb Bush, and that, only because his brother was president (disastrously) eight years ago. Think of Trump as The Joker in the film “The Dark Knight” (2008): “I’m not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are.”

He electrifies audiences, much as fascist scalawags Hitler or Mussolini did when Germans and Italians felt hopeless in the face of economic disaster. But where Nazism is defined as “a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism”, Trump is no Nazi. It is precisely because he is not a Nazi (and hence easy game for the mainstream) that the US imperial elite are so incensed by him and his sudden, immense popularity. He is neither a socialist nor an expansionist. In as much as he has a coherent philosophy, it is libertarian and isolationist. He wants good relations with Russia, and cooperation on fighting al-Qaeda’s latest incarnation. “Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?”

Alternative to the Bush-Obama project

In 2008, there suddenly emerged an equally unlikely ‘dark horse’, an elegant, articulate black candidate with vague promises to counter the Bush warmongering, and confront the outrageous crimes of the banking establishment. Obama’s slogans were “Change We Can Believe In” and the now painful “Yes We Can”, which inspired hope for … change. Despite his blank cheque to confront the bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ‘bank’ruptcy, he appointed those very Wall Street foxes to clean up the chicken coup, ended up slapping a few wrists, giving them trillions in bailouts, leaving the criminals with their billions and their casino capitalism in place. His promise of election financing reform turned into the opposite, as tax loopholes and PACs were embraced in his own election campaign.

Though having voted against the Iraq invasion in 2003–a brave move–Obama fritter away his one public rejection of militarism, and methodically carried out Bush’s agenda in Afghanistan. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are failed states, now Obama’s legacy as much as Bush’s, complete with a rag-tag caliphate in place in a large chunk of Iraq and Syria. Obama is actually promoting ISIS as a result of, yes, more imperial overreach.

The failure of the Bush-Obama neocon agenda starkly shows that US imperialism is no longer a viable New World Order option, that the only policy that makes sense is Trump’s isolationism combined with good relations with Russia. The war in Syria began, as did the western invasion of Libya, when Obama and Hollande said “Assad must go,” a blatant violation of both longstanding western respect for the nation state and Islamic jurisprudence. “Trump and Putin could return the concept of sovereignty to its privileged position. This would end many wars,” writes Israel Shamir. A neo-detente to oppose neo-imperialism.

Neo-detente with Russia undermines the US need for a foreign enemy to justify imperialist overreach. But the Cold War ‘Better dead than red’ lives on now in ‘If you are not with us, you are against us.’ Hillary, who supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq and hostility to Russia, carries on the tradition.

Trump appeals to both bigots and thinkers

What impresses all Americans about Trump is his lack of ties to the banking/ industrial/ Israel lobbyists. True, he loudly praises Israel and Netanyahu, but at the same time states politely that Israel must make compromises if it wants peace, putting him on the radar of Zionists, and preventing any breakthrough in the mainstream media. Unlike the Bushes, Trump has no use for Saudi Arabia. He has no fondness for bankers (“killers”) after his four bankruptcies. Trump argues his experience declaring bankruptcy is good preparation for what he may need to do in the White House.

This combined with a populist agenda emphasizing job creation–“Many of the great jobs that the people of our country want are long gone, shipped to other countries. We now are part time, sad! I WILL FIX!”–is a winning combination. But there are problems. His Mexican wall and ban on Muslims are clearly over the top, and are condemned by all but the bigots among his followers. But as one supporter told the New Yorker, “There are so many other things going on in this country that we’ve got to be concerned about. I’ve seen a lot of our friends lose their houses.”

Both proposals are unconstitutional and unworkable, more campaign rhetoric than substance. Trump’s promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is prohibited by the Constitution. Every undocumented immigrant would be entitled to a hearing and an appeal. Trump’s advisers should have told him that the Mexican wall is unnecessary in an era of total surveillance, and besides, there is a net out-migration of Mexicans now. The American Dream has soured, in case he hadn’t noticed.

As for Muslims, a ban on immigrants according to religion violates the first amendment. Trump’s emotional call came after the tragic shooting in San Bernardino, in which 14 people were killed by ISIS types. Hillary Clinton said that Trump’s rhetoric was the “best recruiter” for the Islamic State militant group. On Face the Nation, Trump dismissed Clinton’s jibe, and elsewhere has retorted to her that she is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. “Clinton caused tremendous death with incompetent decisions” in the Middle East. “All this has led to ISIS.”

Comically Bush and Ted Cruz called for a similar ban (with no media outcry), only allowing Christian Syrian immigrants, but when asked how he could implement this, Bush shrugged and said, “You’re a Christian. I think you can prove it. If you can’t prove it, then, you know …”

Blacks generally resent Mexican immigrants for taking jobs which otherwise would go to blacks, and many admire Trump for his honesty. Only Latino Americans are staunchly anti-Trump. Trump’s gaffes have cost him millions, lost him many wavering supporters, not to mention his honorary doctorate from Robert Gordon University in Scotland. They could lose him the nomination, but he soldiers on fearlessly. He has admitted mistakes before. He could do it again.

He has an intriguing policy on taxes, claiming he wants to soak the rich, including himself. He proposed a 14% tax on the net worth of wealthy Americans. (It would increase his personal tax bill by $725 million.) He argues his one-time tax package would raise $5.7 trillion to erase the nation’s debt and save $200 billion in annual interest payments, saving Social Security and allowing a tax cut for the middle class.

Third party options

Trump represents the new populist neo-neocon politics, already strong in France, Greece, Spain and elsewhere in Europe, and similarly denounced in the mainstream media there. But voters are no longer drinking the cool-aid.

A few months ago, it looked like Bush would take the nomination through inertia, but his lack of charisma, and the growing understanding that his brother’s reign was disastrous, have buried him. If Trump incredibly wins the nomination, there is talk (William Kristol and Bush) of organizing an independent candidate. If the establishment manages to bury Trump, there won’t be anyone of substance left, and Republicrat Clinton will coast to victory. Already Cheney and other neocons are looking to her as their dream candidate.

There is a third party waiting to be revived for such a program of radical, right wing change–the Reform Party, founded in 1995 after Ross Perot’s independent 1992 presidential campaign. It has nominated several notable candidates over the years, such as Perot himself, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader. Jesse Ventura was elected on its ticket as governor of Minnesota in 1998. Trump would fit in quite easily if it comes to that.

North Korea: A Cancer In Asia That Needs To Be Checked – Analysis

0
0

By Aniket Bhavthankar*

On January 6, 2016 seismometers across the world had measured a 5.1 Richter scale seismic event. Immediately after that North Korea claimed that it has successfully conducted its first Hydrogen Bomb test. Arch rival and its immediate neighbor South Korea, reacted very strongly to the North Korean assertion; the United States (US) sent a stern warning to Pyongyang. Japan is equally alarmed and asked for a firm global response. China and Russia, long time supporters of North Korea have also expressed their dissatisfaction about recent developments. Unlike earlier instances, North Korea didn’t give advance notices to China, Russia or the US. North Korea is likely to face more sanctions; it has been under the UN Security Council sanctions since it first carried out a nuclear test in 2006. If claims made by North Korea are true, then it will surely escalate the nuclear challenge from this pariah state.

The US intelligence services have sensed some underground activities near the Punggye-ri nuclear site. Hence, the fourth test had been long expected. Though North Korea has claimed about successful testing of the Hydrogen Bomb, many analysts have expressed their suspicion about the announcement. As noted earlier, a 5.1 magnitude tremor was detected from Kilju City near nuclear site. And important to note, last time when North Korea conducted a nuclear test, a tremor of 5.1 magnitude was registered on the devices. Besides, the device has yielded 6 kilo tones roughly the same as the last test. Hence, it is difficult to believe that North Korea has actually detonated a full-fledged Hydrogen Bomb.

However, world powers are not taking any chances as a seismic event is not the only measure to assess the test of a Hydrogen Bomb. If traces of Tritium are found in the atmosphere then that would be a strong indication of a test of fission device. The US and Japan have send their sniffer planes to analyze the atmosphere off the coast of North Korea. The aim is to evaluate radiation coming off the test site that would provide clues about type of bomb. However, it is also not the most accurate method to know about the test. So, we have to wait to know the nature of this test. Besides this, an important thing to note is that North Korea’s ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, mount it on a ballistic missile and target its perceived enemies. Many senior US military officials have warned about North Korea’s newly acquired capability. One thing is clear: the North Korean nuclearsiation has created ripples across the world.

Foreign policy has been remained a core issue in the US presidential elections. The Republicans have accused Obama administration of running a weak foreign policy that enabled North Korea to strengthen its nuclear capabilities. Domestic constituents in the US are asking President Barack Obama to pressurize China, a staunch supporter of North Korea. Last September, during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the White House, Obama pressed for action on North Korea’s continuous process of nuclearsiation. A new test gives an opportunity for the US to redouble the pressure on Beijing.

South Korea is really worried about the boost in the North Korean nuclear capability. They have asked the world community in general and the US in particular to pay attention on the geopolitical tensions in the Korean peninsula. The US has earlier suggested for deploying Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) within the South Korean territory. However, South Korea was not enthusiastic about the plan as it was not in favour to have a diplomatic headache with China. It will be interesting to see whether North Korea’s test would force Seoul to change its mind.

This test will certainly add strains in the relationship between China and North Korea and increase pressure on it to contain and control Pyongyang. China has also failed in its efforts to establish a cordial relation with Kim Jong-un , North Korea’s president. China is worried that at the pretext of the North Korean tests, the United States and Japan will install more military facilities in the area. Incidentally, this will allow them to monitor situation in the South China Sea. If North Korea continues to develop a sophisticated nuclear weapons and delivery mechanisms then it will certainly push South Korea and Japan to follow the North Korean footprints. This kind of arms race may potentially lead to instability in the Korean peninsula. China is also concerned that a destablised North Korea might send large number of refugees inside its territory.

We have to note, the US and China have lost their traction within North Korea since the break down of the six party talks. Only country with some influence in North Korea is Russia. But, West has differed with Russia on several geopolitical issues, especially after Ukraine crisis. Earlier, the rise of the Islamic State gave an opportunity to Moscow to score point over western capitals. And, sensitive situation in the Korean peninsula provides an upper hand for the Russia in the geopolitically divided world. It also indicates that though China considers itself as an emerging superpower, it does not enjoy political and strategic influence in its neighbourhood.

North Korea’s detonation squarely questions the effectiveness of the global non-proliferation regime. The regime has failed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology. India has expressed its concerns over links between the North Korean nuclear program and the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear program, A.Q. Khan. Besides, there is growing suspicion that North Korea is supplying arms to warring factions in conflict-ridden West Asia. The cancer of illegal nuclear trade is posing a danger to global peace and security and warrants a comprehensive framework to confront this danger.

*Aniket Bhavthankar is a Senior Research Associate at the Society for Policy Studies. He can be reached at aniketb@spsindia.in


India And Israel: Strengthening The Bonds – OpEd

0
0

What on earth, one might legitimately wonder, could India have in common with Israel? Wildly at variance in size (India’s population tops 1.25 billion; Israel’s struggles to reach 8 million), they are at least both alumni of Britain’s one-time imperial college, each with somewhat equivocal feelings towards their alma mater, and struggling free of their colonial bonds within a few months of each other in 1947-48. Even so, for a long time the connection between New Delhi and Jerusalem was far from close. It took forty years for India to overcome the fear that close relations with the Jewish State might somehow radicalize its Muslim citizens – who number over 100 million – and hurt its relations with the Arab world.

It was, perhaps, the disintegration in 1991 of the Soviet Union – long a bulwark of the Arab Middle East – that encouraged India to overcome those misgivings. Its main Muslim neighbour on the sub-continent, Pakistan, has never recognized Israel, but India has conducted an on-off armed struggle with Pakistan since its foundation, so any scruples about hurting its feelings probably did not weigh very heavily in India’s consideration. Perhaps both India and Israel saw themselves as isolated democracies threatened by neighbours that train, finance and encourage terrorism. Whatever the rationale, in 1992 India established full diplomatic relations with Israel, and since then economic, social and security collaboration between the two nations has burgeoned, and India has become one of Israel’s largest trading partners.

In 2014 Indo-Israeli bilateral trade, excluding defence, reached $4.52 billion, a 3.8 percent increase on the previous year. But it is defence and security that lie at the heart of the ever-closer ties between India and Israel, with the effective countering of terrorism as the prime objective. Israel has sold radar and surveillance systems for military aircraft and has provided India with training in counter-terrorism. In November 2011, India’s élite Cobra Commando unit bought more than 1,000 Israeli X-95 assault rifles for counter-insurgency operations, and placed orders for four advanced Israeli Phalcon planes equipped with airborne warning and control systems (AWACS). Further orders for advanced counter-terrorism military hardware followed, backed by a joint intelligence-sharing agreement between the two nations aimed at fighting radical Islamic extremism.

The blossoming collaboration was endorsed when, for the first time in over a decade, the prime ministers of Israel and India met in September 2014 in New York. Extreme cordiality seems to have marked the encounter between Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi. They met again in November, on the sidelines of the climate change conference in Paris, just as Israel Aerospace Industries successfully tested a jointly developed Indian-Israeli Barak 8 air and naval defence missile system – “an important milestone in the cooperation between India and Israel”, according to a top advisor to India’s defense minister.

All of which both provides the background to, and perhaps explains, the first-ever official visit by an Indian head of state to Israel a year later. In October 2015 President Pranab Mukherjee arrived in Jerusalem, to a rumbling background of media reservations, despite the fact that Mukherjee visited both Jordan and the Palestinian territories ahead of his visit to Israel, and expressed India’s solid support for a “sovereign, independent, viable and united State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living within secure and recognized borders, side by side at peace with Israel as endorsed in the Quartet Roadmap and relevant UNSC Resolutions.”

Hosted by Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin, Mukherjee, in his own words, “reviewed our multidimensional relations and explored ways and means to enhance them for the mutual benefit of our two countries.”

The fact that mutual benefit is indeed being derived from this ever-closer Indo-Israeli relationship is undisputed. India is one of the world’s two most rapidly developing economies (China is the other), and represents a huge potential market for Israel’s defence, aerospace, and high-tech industries – a market already being exploited, but one with unimaginably vast possibilities still to be explored. “The sky’s the limit”, said Netanyahu recently, referring to the potential for strengthening bilateral Indo-Israel co-operation in a wide variety of fields.

For India, Israel offers access to the most advanced technologies available in the world, across a range of areas – defence, security, computer science, cyber forensics, agricultural techniques, micro-irrigation, urban water systems. In 2013, Israel announced a scheme to help India diversify and raise the yield of its fruit and vegetable crops. By March 2014, 10 Centres of Excellence were operating throughout India, offering free training sessions for farmers in efficient agricultural techniques using Israeli technology and know-how, including vertical farming, drip irrigation and soil solarisation. A year later, no less than 29 such Centres were in operation.

As for the field of defence, in 2015 Israel Aerospace Industries and the Indian state-owned Defense Research and Development Organization began collaborating on a jointly developed surface-to-air missile system for the Indian Army. India uses Israel-made unmanned drones for surveillance and military purposes, and during 2015 ordered 16 drones and well as buying 321 launchers and 8,356 missiles from the Israeli military.

That India’s stance vis-a-vis Israel has shifted became evident when India took to abstaining, rather than vote against Israel in a succession of UN votes. The most notable occasion was in July 2015, when India abstained on the vote to adopt the UN Human Rights Council’s report on Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s action against Hamas’s rocket attacks the previous year. It was the first time in decades that India had abstained from a decision against Israel in an international forum. India has long been a key player in the Non-Aligned Movement – a body of states that would automatically vote for the Palestinians and against Israel.

It may also explain why India’s Foreign Minister, Sushma Swaraj, will be visiting Israel from January 16-19. Swaraj, who served from 2006 to 2009 as chair of the Indo-Israeli Parliamentary Friendship Group, last came to the country in 2008. Her forthcoming tour may herald an official visit later in 2016 by Indian prime minister Modi – the first by an Indian prime minister, announced back in June 2015, but which has so far failed to materialize. Given the huge and developing level of cooperation between the two nations, Modi’s trip to Israel cannot be long delayed.

Al Qaeda Threatens To Attack Italy And Spain

0
0

The terrorist organization al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb issued Thursday a video, threatening to conduct terrorist attacks in Naples, Rome and Madrid, according to Agency Europa Press.

“Today, they are on our land, but the blessing of God the day will come when we will strike them on their land: in Naples, Rome, Madrid,” says the video.

The video contains footage of the members of the group in Mali, said the Agency. Among NCDs is identified a citizen of Spain originally from Melilla, who took the Islamic name Abu al-Nur al-Andalusi.

Video run time is 13 minutes. It uses footage from already committed terrorist acts. Spanish security forces are studying this video.

Volatile Markets In An Uncertain World – OpEd

0
0

Recent market volatility is neither entirely warranted nor unexpected. In China, it reflects a confluence of forces; but in the US and internationally, it is fueled by international worries.

On Monday, January 4, China’s A-shares plunged by about 7%, whereas the renminbi (RMB) weakened to 6.52 relative to US dollar.

The CSI 300 index, which tracks large-cap stocks in Shanghai and Shenzhen, suffered the largest single-day plunge in months. The fall was fueled by soft data (Caixin PMI’s slowdown to 48.2). However, the 0.4 decline was too small for an adequate trigger.

Moderate RMB depreciation, with occasional volatility, is only to be expected after recent reforms of the currency peg and the ongoing RMB internationalization.

So why did markets react so strongly and will there be more of the same?

Snowballing

The market reaction was a strong one, but not exactly unexpected, due to the circuit- breaker effect, the expiration of a sales ban, amplified volatility, IPO tweaking and economic and international concerns.

Circuit-breaker effect. Under the new circuit breaker rules, the trading of stocks, futures and options will be suspended for 15 minutes, when the CSI 300 Index falls or rises by 5%. And when the index moves by 7%, trading will be halted for the rest of the session. While such circuit-breakers have been criticized, they have proved useful internationally – and could have been quite helpful amid last summer’s meltdown.

Expiration of a ban. After weeks of extraordinary market volatility, Beijing imposed a half-year ban in July 2015 to prevent major shareholders from selling their investments. With a stake of over 5% in the A-share companies, these majors can move the market, in good or bad. The ban allowed the government to stabilize the market: at year-end 2015, the Shanghai Composite was up 10%, while Shenzhen surged 65%.

Amplified volatility. On Monday, investors were concerned that major shareholders would sell with the expiration of the ban on Friday. In China, individual investors still dominate the market, whereas institutions are the minority. Consequently, Chinese markets are significantly more volatile than those in advanced economies.

IPO tweaking. Last July, the initial public offerings (IPOs) were suspended as part of measures to end the rout that severely impaired market capitalizations. Last month, the IPOs resumed while regulators moved ahead to curb market volatility.

Economic concerns. Despite decelerating growth, rebalancing is moving ahead in China, despite periodic economic uncertainty and market volatility. That will fuel conflicts between “reformers” who demand policy tightening; and “stabilizers” who demand policy stimulus – while investors are left anxious.

It was the snowballing and confluence of these domestic concerns that led to the “black Monday” (but supported a slow recovery in China on Tuesday).

In China, the volatility is likely to continue until the ban’s deadline on Friday, possibly beyond. However, the markets are now over-estimating the threat factor in China but under-estimating the threat factor in the US and internationally.

International anxieties

In the US, the Dow closed down in triple digits, with the worst opening day in years. Elevated volatility indicators suggest the potential of contagion, but not more – for now.

On Tuesday, the US markets plunged, mainly on concerns over rising geopolitical tensions and oil prices that fell below $35 per barrel. The 11-year low in energy prices reflects not just the fall of the energy prices but also diminished global prospects.

The latter were confirmed by IMF chief Christine Lagarde who warned of disappointing growth in 2016. She was seconded by the IMF’s new chief economist Maury Obstfeld who said China could “spook” the markets again during the ongoing year.

If the IMF comments were timed to contribute to economic uncertainty and market volatility right amid the opening of the markets after the holiday period, they were quite successful.

On Wednesday morning, Chinese markets were shut down for the second time this week following only 13 minutes of trading, which caused a 7% plunge in the CSI300 Index – which, in turn, triggered the circuit breaker.

Unease in the Asian markets will prevail as long as feedback effects continue to escalate.

In the coming months, it is the deeper, secular international anxieties that will drive volatility. Currently, these worries focus on the geopolitical meltdown in the Middle East, which is driven by struggles for regional primacy, the plunge of energy prices, and the associated risks of the Islamic State, exported political terror, and escalating refugee crises.

In the medium-term, these geopolitical forces are reinforced by continued stagnation in Europe and Japan, lingering recovery in the US, Brazil’s severe slump, Russia’s slow recovery amid protracted sanctions, and India’s ample growth potential but slow reforms – just to mention a few.

What will make things a lot worse in the near future are the Fed’s rate hikes, which will amplify the challenges, particularly in commodity-exporting emerging economies which are likely to suffer from budget and currency crises while fragile developing economies will fare far worse.

Today, the world economy is weaker and more vulnerable to destabilization than ever since World War II. It is time to fasten the seat belt.

Source: Difference Group

On Wibisono’s Resignation As UN Special Rapporteur On Occupied Palestine – OpEd

0
0

By Richard Falk *

Makarim Wibisono announced his resignation as UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine, to take effect on March 31, 2016. This is position I held for six years, completing my second term in June 2014.

The prominent Indonesian diplomat says that he could not fulfill his mandate because Israel has adamantly refused to give him access to the Palestinian people living under its military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“Unfortunately, my efforts to help improve the lives of Palestinian victims of violations under the Israeli occupation have been frustrated every step of the way,” Wibisono explains.

His resignation reminds me in a strange way of Richard Goldstone’s retraction a few years ago of the main finding in the UN-commissioned Goldstone report, that Israel intentionally targeted civilians in the course of Operation Cast Lead, its massive attack on Gaza at the end of 2008.

At the time I responded to media inquiries by saying that I was shocked, but not surprised. Shocked because the evidence was overwhelming and the other three distinguished members of the UN fact-finding commission stuck by the finding. Yet I was not surprised because I knew Goldstone – a former judge of the South African constitutional court – to be a man of strong ambition and weak character, a terrible mix for public figures who wander into controversial territory.

In Wibisono’s case I am surprised, but not shocked. Surprised because he should have known from the outset that he was faced with a dilemma between doing the job properly of reporting on Israel’s crimes and human rights abuses and gaining Israel’s cooperation in the course of gathering this evidence. Not shocked, indeed grateful, as it illuminates the difficulty confronting anyone charged with truthful reporting on the Palestinian ordeal under occupation, and by his principled resignation Wibisono doesn’t allow Israel to get away with neutering the position of special rapporteur.

It is worth recalling that when Wibisono was selected as my successor, several more qualified candidates were passed over. Although the selection guidelines stress expert knowledge of the subject matter of the mandate, Wibisono apparently gained the upper hand along with the acquiescence of Israel and the United States precisely because of his lack of any relevant background.

I can only hope that now the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) will redeem its mistake by reviving the candidacies of Professor Christine Chinkin and Phyllis Bennis, both of whom possess the credentials, motivation and strength of character to become an effective special rapporteur.

The Palestinians deserve nothing less.

When I met with Makarim Wibisono in Geneva shortly after his appointment as Special Rapporteur was announced, he told me confidently that he had been assured that if he accepted the appointment the Israeli government would allow him entry, a reassurance that he repeated in his resignation announcement. On his side, he pledged objectivity and balance, and an absence of preconceptions.

I warned him then that even someone who leaned far to the Israeli side politically would find it impossible to avoid reaching the conclusion that Israel was guilty of severe violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights standards, and this kind of honesty was sure to anger the Israelis.

I also told him that he was making a big mistake if he thought he could please both sides, given the reality of prolonged denial of fundamental Palestinian rights. At the time he smiled, apparently feeling confident that his diplomatic skills would allow him to please the Israelis even while he was compiling reports detailing their criminality. He told me that he was seeking to do what I did but to do so more effectively by securing Israel’s cooperation, and thus short circuiting their objections. It was then my turn to smile.

It is correct that the mandate itself is vulnerable to criticism as it does not include an assessment of the responsibility of Palestinian administering authorities for violations of human rights, and only looks at Israeli violations. I tried to persuade the HRC unsuccessfully to have the mandate enlarged to encompass wrongdoing by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The arguments against doing so was that it had been difficult to get agreement to establish the mandate, and opening up the issue of its scope was risky, and also that the overwhelming evidence of Palestinian victimization resulting from the occupation resulted from Israel’s policies and practices. Hence, it was argued by several delegations at the HRC that attention to the Palestinian violations would be diversionary, and give Israel a way to deflect criticism directed at the occupation.

What I discovered during my six years as special rapporteur is that you can make a difference, but only if you are willing to put up with the heat.

You can make a difference in several ways. Above all, by giving foreign ministries around the world the most authoritative account available of the daily realities facing the Palestinian people. Also important is the ability to shift the discourse in more illuminating directions, instead of limiting discussion to ‘the occupation,’ address issues of de facto annexation, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid, as well as give some support within the UN for such civil society initiatives as BDS and the Freedom Flotilla. By so doing you have to expect ultra-Zionist organizations and those managing the ‘special relationship’ between Israel and the United States to react harshly, including by launching a continuous defamatory campaign that seeks by all means to discredit your voice and will mount inflammatory accusations of anti-Semitism and, in my case, of being a “self-hating Jew.”

What both shocked and surprised me was the willingness of both the UN Secretary General and US diplomatic representatives (Susan Rice, Samantha Power) at the UN to bend in Israel’s direction and join the chorus making these irresponsible denunciations focused on a demand for my resignation.

Although periodically tempted to resign, I am glad that I didn’t. Given the pro-Israel bias of the mainstream media in the United States and Europe, it is particularly important, however embattled the position, to preserve this source of truth telling, and not to give in to the pressures mounted.

My hope is that the Human Rights Council will learn from the Wibisono experience and appoint someone who can both stand the heat and report the realities for what they are. It is hampering the performance of a Special Rapporteur to be denied Israeli cooperation with official UN functions, which is itself a violation of Israel’s obligations as a member of the UN. At the same time, Israel’s behavior that flaunts international law is so manifest and reliable information so easily available that I found it possible to compile reports that covered the main elements of the Palestinian ordeal. Of course, direct contact with people living under occupation would have added a dimension of validation and witnessing, as well as giving some tangible expression of UN concern for the abuses being committed under conditions of an untenably prolonged occupation with no end in sight.

Until the day that Palestinian self-determination arrives, the least that UN can do is to keep open this window of observation and appraisal. After all, it is the UN that undertook back in 1947 to find a solution to the Israel/Palestinian struggle that acknowledged the equal claims of both peoples. Although such an approach was colonialist and interventionist in 1947, it has plausibility in 2016 given the developments in the intervening years. The UN may not be guilty in relation to what went wrong, but it certainly has failed to discharge its responsibilities with regard to Palestinian fundamental rights. Until these rights are realized, the UN should give this remnant of the colonial era as much attention as possible.

(This article appeared on January 5th under a different title in the Electronic Intifada. It was publish in the author’s blog in a slightly modified and extended form).

*Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Visit his blog

Obama: America Can Do Anything – Transcript

0
0

In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama remarked on the incredible progress that has been made in the American auto industry. Just seven years ago, the industry was on the brink of collapse, with plants closing and hundreds of thousands of workers getting laid off. The President made a decision in his first couple of months in office to place his bet on American workers and American manufacturing, implementing a strategy to bring the American auto industry back. Since then, Detroit-area unemployment has been cut by more than half, and automakers have added more than 640,000 new jobs. On January 20, the President will visit the Detroit Auto Show to see this progress firsthand. Because the story of the auto industry is an apt illustration of all that America has accomplished in the past seven years, and all that it can do.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
January 9, 2016

Hi everybody. Seven years ago, the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse. Plants were closing. Hundreds of thousands of workers were getting laid off from jobs that had been their ticket to a middle-class life. And as the pain spread across the country, another one million Americans would have lost their jobs in the middle of the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes.

Some said it was too late to turn things around. But I refused to turn my back on so many of the workers that I’d met. Instead, I placed my bet on American workers. I placed my bet on American manufacturing. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We said the auto industry would have to truly change, not just pretend that it did. We got labor and management to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Everyone had some skin in the game.

Our plan wasn’t popular. Critics said it was a “road to socialism,” or a “disaster” waiting to happen. But I’d make that bet again any day of the week. Because today, the American auto industry is back. Since our plan went into effect, our automakers have added more than 640,000 new jobs. We’ve cut the Detroit-area unemployment rate by more than half. The Big Three automakers are raising wages. Seven years ago, auto sales hit a 27-year low. Last year, they hit an all-time high.

Later this month, I’ll visit the Detroit Auto Show to see this progress firsthand. Because I believe that every American should be proud of what our most iconic industry has done.

It’s not unlike what America overall has done these past seven years. Our businesses are now on a 70-month streak of job creation, with more than 14 million new jobs in all. We’ve revamped our schools and the way we pay for college. We’ve made historic investments in clean energy and put ourselves on a path to a low-carbon future. We’ve brought more than 17 million Americans into our health care system, seen health care prices grow at the lowest rate in fifty years, and covered more than 90 percent of our people for the very first time. We’ve even cut our deficits by nearly 75 percent in the process.

The point is America can do anything. Even in times of great challenge and change, our future is entirely up to us. That’s been on my mind while I’m writing my final State of the Union Address. And on Tuesday, I’m going to talk about the choices we have to make to set this country firmly on an even better, brighter course for decades to come.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images