Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will visit Riyadh and Tehran in a bid to mend ties between the archrivals after the Saudi execution of a prominent Shiite cleric led to mob attacks on the kingdom’s diplomatic posts in Iran, the Associated Press reports.

Federal Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid said Saturday, Jan 16, that Sharif would depart Monday for Riyadh, where he will meet with King Salman. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are longtime allies.

On Tuesday Sharif will meet with Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani in Tehran.

The Pakistani Prime Minister will be accompanied by his country’s military chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif.

Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran back opposite sides in the wars in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Iran after the attacks on its diplomatic posts.

The United Nations Security Council said Sunday that it has removed Iranian Bank Sepah and its international subsidiary from a sanctions list, following yesterday’s announcement of a UN report confirming that Iran has completed necessary preparatory steps to start the implementation of a plan of action aiming to resolve the nuclear issue.

The report was submitted to the 15-nation Security Council after UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors on the ground verified that Iran has carried out all measures required under what is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to enable “Implementation Day” to occur.

In July, Iran and a group of six countries – China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and United States – reached the JCPOA through resolution 2231 (2015), entrusting the IAEA with verifying and monitoring Iran’s commitments.

The resolution noted that the JCPOA will “terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue […] simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran.”

Bank Sepah had been under a Council-mandated asset freeze since 2007. It provides support for the Aerospace Industries Organisation (AIO) and subordinates, including Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) and Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (SBIG).

The diplomatic scandal between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, after the execution of the Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr and the subsequent attacks on Saudi embassy and consulate in two cities, became the main topic of the extraordinary meeting held by the foreign ministers of the Arab League on January 10, 2016.

At the meeting in Cairo called by Riyadh, Arab League foreign ministers condemned Iran for attacks on diplomatic missions and intervention in the Middle Eastern affairs. However, Lebanon, a country with a strong Shia movement, abstained from supporting the final statement due to accusations in terrorist activities against the organization “Hezbollah” in such countries as Syria and Bahrain.

The day before, on January 9, the foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council issued a similar statement, in which they expressed readiness to take additional measures against Iran in case of new hostile moves.

The relations between Riyadh and Tehran took a sudden turn for the worse on 2 January 2016, when Saudi Arabia announced the execution of 47 persons accused of terrorism, including the Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr who was sentenced to death in 2014 for inciting sectarian strife and threatening national unity.

The actions of Saudi Arabia drew strong criticism from the top officials in Iran, Iraq and Syria, as well as the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and the German Human Rights Envoy Christoph Straesser.

On January 3, Riyadh severed diplomatic ties with Iran, after a group of protesters who gathered by the Saudi embassy in Tehran stormed the building, thrashed the offices and set it on fire during a nightly riot, while a mob attacked the consulate office in the second-largest Iranian city of Mashhad on the same night.

In a show of solidarity with Riyadh, one of the strongest players in the Arab Sunni world, Bahrain, Sudan, Somali and Djibouti also cut diplomatic ties with Iran, while Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE downgraded their level of diplomatic representation in the Islamic Republic.

The crisis in bilateral relations affected other areas as well. In particular, Riyadh and its allies announced the plans to boycott goods made in Iran. Moreover, on January 5, Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, one of the richest men in the world, canceled his plans to invest in the Islamic Republic. In return, on January 7, the government in Tehran severed commercial relations with Saudi Arabia, restricted imports from the countries that supported the execution of Nimr al-Nimr, and further extended the ban on Iranians traveling to the holy city of Mecca for the umrah pilgrimage.

However, both sides stated their intentions to continue participation in the Syrian settlement talks, the nearest round scheduled for beginning in Geneva on Monday, January 25.

Nevertheless, many politicians, observers and experts worldwide expressed their concern that the severing of diplomatic relations between the two countries may provoke yet another spike in Middle Eastern tensions. From their point of view, the recent incident will complicate dialogue not just over Iraq and Syria, but also over Yemen, where the end of the ceasefire on January 2 coincided with the execution of Nimr al-Nimr.

One of them, Bashdar Ismaeel, London-based journalist, political analyst, expert on Iraq, Turkey, Syria and the Middle East, suggested that the bold move by Riyadh and its allies split the Arab world into two parts and further polarized the longstanding opposition between the Sunni and the Shia.

“The Saudi wanted to send a strong message to Iran, but it also wanted to show that it has friends in the region. It is a big player, that goes without saying, and it holds significant sway,” the expert explained in an interview to “PenzaNews” agency.

From his point of view, the Saudi authorities decided to make such a bold step to prevent any further aggression aimed at its interests, including those in the hotspots of the Middle East.

“Friction isn’t new between Saudi Arabia and Iran. But in the last 10 years or so, especially since Saddam [Hussein] was denounced, the jockeying for power, especially in Iraq, Syria and the greater region, has been a lot more noticeable between Saudi Arabia and Iran. […] In Syria, there is a direct conflict between Iran and Saudi. Same in Yemen at the moment, with the airstrikes by Saudi Arabia taking place on the support that Iran has given to the Houthi rebels. Iran has shown itself as a big strength in the last few years on the regional stage. Of course, Saudi Arabia has worked hard to preserve its interests. It has a big military mind, and it wants to show Iran that not only will it promise action, it will deliver action,” Bashdar Ismaeel said.

In his opinion, the diplomatic conflict requires urgent resolution, which is a direct concern for Russia, the United States, and other countries.

“I think the allies and Russia also have a very key part to play here. Russia is a key influence in the Middle East at this moment in time, especially over Syria, but also it has good relations with most of these Arab countries,” the observer noted.

Meanwhile, Joseph Kechichian, expert on the Middle East and the Gulf states, Senior Fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, suggested that the Saudi-Iran conflict will last for at least several months.

“For the time being, there is a cooling-off period that will probably be useful. Both countries will essentially take a little time to figure out what is going on,” the political analyst explained.

He reminded that Tehran and Riyadh were and will remain neighbors, and therefore they will sooner or later restore bilateral relations with the help by the regional states.

“The two countries are not natural enemies: they have a great deal in common, but they also have a lot of differences of opinion,” the researcher said. Moreover, he stressed that the Saudi initiative to sever diplomatic ties was caused solely by the attacks on its diplomatic missions, a move that Riyadh considers an act of interference in its internal affairs.

“The leadership has concluded that it was in the best interest of the country to do this at this point,” Joseph Kechichian stressed, adding that Riyadh realizes the consequences of the decision for the peaceful negotiations over Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.

At the same time, Thierry Coville, expert on Iran, researcher for the French Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), suggested that the attacks on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and the consulate office in Mashhad could have been an internal act of provocation against the government in place.

“This fact has been condemned by nearly all the political spheres in Iran. […] I think the groups who have committed this act are some extremists, and maybe they are not happy with the present political situation in Iran and the want to complicate the task of the present Iranian government looking at the next parliamentary elections in February,” the expert explained.

Discussing the history of relations between the two countries, he reminded that in the 20th century, Iran during the rule of Presidenr Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani managed to achieve better and more constructive relations with Riyadh that lasted several years.

“I think the present tensions start in 2003, when Saddam Hussein in Iraq was overthrown and the Shia government came to power in Iraq. Since this fact, the Saudi authorities were completely obsessed with Iranian threat,” the researcher said.

From his point of view, the current policy in Riyadh to escalate tensions against Iran and the Shia community as a whole is a very risky strategy that gives arguments to such terrorist groups as Islamic State (terrorist organization banned in Russia, also known as IS, or Daesh in Arabic).

“I am not saying that Iran has no strategy concerning the region, but they are not developing a narrative based on religious discourse. […] I think they really should come back to a more classic diplomacy. Shia in Sunni in the Middle East have lived peacefully for a long time,” the expert reminded, adding that some Arab countries such as the UAE still remain economically very close to Tehran in spite of the differences.

In turn, Vasily Kuznetsov, director of the Political Systems and Cultures Transformation Issue Center at the World History faculty of the Moscow State University research fellow at the RAS Institute of Oriental Studies, expert of the Russian Council on International Affairs, expressed his doubts that the severing of diplomatic contacts on its own would be leading to any significant global change.

“I would simply regard this episode as one of the elements in the general movement of states and regions to escalation of Iran-Saudi confrontation. I think it will be increasing in the political field, in economy, in military, in the conflicts where Iran and Saudi Arabia are already present directly and indirectly, in Syria and Iraq. But I do not think this strife will cause a direct military clash,” the expert noted.

The execution of the cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who became a symbol of the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia, shows that Riyadh switched to a more harsh policy towards the internal opposition.

“I believe there are two factors related to that. First, the economy – the overall worsening of the economic situation in the kingdom which is present. It must not be overestimated, but it is there nevertheless. […] On the other hand, there is an internal struggle for power in the kingdom between various groups of princes, and there is a point of view that stifling the growth of the protest movement requires crushing down any such attempts,” Vasily Kuznetsov stressed.

At the same time, he expressed his belief that the diplomatic relations of Iran and Saudi Arabia will eventually be restored with the aid of Russia, the US, and other countries.

“But the problem lies not in diplomatic relations. There is a fundamental problem of deep distrust between the two countries, the antagonism, the difference in perspectives on the regional situation. […] The understanding of the situation in each of the two countries needs to change, but I see fairly few opportunities for that in the nearest future,” explained the expert of the Russian Council on International Affairs.

Meanwhile, Renad Mansour, Research Fellow for the Iraq Institute for Strategic Studies in Beirut, expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center, pointed out that Iran and Saudi Arabia will not become true allies as they need to antagonize each other to exist.
“From many perspectives, it seems like an overstretch to simply cut diplomatic relations because of protests and the burning of the embassy. But it does exemplify the tensions between the two countries, which have been going on for a long time in the region,” the expert said.

He also suggested that the execution of the Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr could have been an attempt by the Saudi rulers to distract the public attention from the execution of radical Sunni Islamists that have the sympathies of a segment of the population.

“For Riyadh, sectarianism is a necessary tool for legitimacy, because when it is able to create an external threat of Iran, of the Shia and the Shia expansion, it is able to gain legitimacy among its Sunni population which is the majority,” Renad Mansour explained.

In his opinion, there is no danger that the Sunni-Shia Cold War would transform into a full-fledged sectarian clash, but the peaceful process over Syria, Yemen and Iraq potentially would be delayed.

“Cutting diplomatic ties is cutting communication, and we’ve seen in the past that even if you disagree with another country, you should at the very least have some form of communication just to understand and know the other country,” stressed the Research Fellow for the Iraq Institute for Strategic Studies.

In turn, Michael Stephens, Middle East expert, director of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in Qatar, suggested that the timing for Riyadh to execute the Shia cleric was not right.

“They were willing to send a message to the West, and they were willing to send a message internally. […] But, of course, politics being what they are, if you execute a Shia cleric in Saudi Arabia, it is going to come across very badly,” the expert said, adding that Nimr al-Nimr became an important figure for the Shia over the years of his court process.

Discussing the attacks on the diplomatic missions in Iran, he recalled a similar incident on 29 November 2011, when a group of rioters trashed the UK embassy in Tehran after the introduction of a new set of sanctions, which resulted in Iranian diplomats being forced to leave London at once.

“The reaction of Iranians [at night into 3 January 2016] clearly was a breach of the 1961 diplomatic convention,” Michael Stephens said.

From his point of view, the aggressive reaction by the Iranian population and the harsh measures taken by Riyadh in return are caused by the fact that neither side wants to look weak with the current level of tensions.

According to the analyst, the growing tensions due to cut diplomatic ties may negatively affect not only the Arab world conflicts, but also the European migration crisis.

“I think the people that have to do the most work here are probably Moscow and Washington. Those two countries are probably the only two countries right now that have enough diplomatic influence in the region to actually be able to get these two to start backing down,” he pointed out, adding that the decision by Washington to distance itself from the issues in the Middle East only made the situation more complex.

In addition, Michael Stephens urged the United Nations, as well as politicians of the East and the West to revitalize and flesh out multilateral talks over Yemen and Syria to stop the fighting, and use this opportunity to begin a long-term recovery of Saudi-Iran diplomatic relations.

“Obviously, the decision to break relations is not going to help solve any of the problems in the Arab world. It’s a frustrating time when you’ve got some many conflicts at the moment, and what really need to happen is people coming together, and not dividing,” the expert stressed.

The Zika virus, possibly linked to serious birth defects in Brazil, has the potential to spread within the Americas, including parts of the United States, according to an international team of researchers who track the spread of infectious diseases.

The Zika virus, native to parts of Africa and Asia, has for the first time been introduced into the Americas where it is spreading locally among people who have not travelled abroad. There is no vaccine against the virus or antiviral treatment.

“The summer Olympic Games in Brazil in August heighten the need for awareness of this emerging virus,” Dr. Kamran Khan of St. Michael’s Hospital wrote in a research letter published in The Lancet.

Zika is generally a mild illness, spread by a day-biting mosquito. However, there is a worrisome, but as of yet unproven, association of infected mothers in Brazil giving birth to babies with small heads and underdeveloped brains, Dr. Khan said. There has been a 20-fold increase in the number of babies born with this condition, known as microcephaly, since Zika first appeared in Brazil in May 2015.

The virus has since spread across more than a dozen countries in South and Central America and up into Mexico. A case was confirmed in Puerto Rico in December in an individual who had not recently travelled, meaning he or she was bitten by a local infected mosquito. The Centers for Disease Control say some travellers returning to the United States from Zika-affected areas have also been infected with the virus, which has the potential of allowing the virus to then spread locally.

To predict where Zika might spread, Dr. Khan and his team mapped the final destinations of international travellers leaving airports in Brazil from September 2014 to August 2015.

Of those 9.9 million travellers, 65 per cent were going to the Americas, 27 per cent to Europe and 5 per cent to Asia. Traveller volumes were greatest to the United States, followed by Argentina, Chile, Italy, Portugal, and France. China and Angola received the highest volume of travellers in Asia and Africa, respectively.

Members of the team from Oxford University mapped the global geography of (Aedes species) mosquitoes capable of transmitting Zika virus and then modeled the worldwide climate conditions necessary for the virus to spread between Aedes mosquitoes and humans. They estimated that more than 60 per cent of the populations of the United States, Argentina and Italy live in areas conducive to seasonal transmission of Zika virus. By comparison, Mexico, Colombia and the United States have an estimated 30.5 million, 23.2 million and 22.7 million people respectively living in areas conducive to year-round Zika virus transmission.

Dr. Khan said that with no vaccine or antiviral therapy available, possible interventions include personal protection (i.e., repellent use); daytime avoidance of mosquito bites (especially by pregnant women until more is known about the association between Zika virus infection and microcephaly) and community-level mosquito surveillance and control measures.

“The world we live in is very interconnected now said Dr. Isaac Bogoch, a tropical infectious disease specialist at the Toronto General Hospital who contributed to the study. “Things don’t happen in isolation anymore. Infections from the farthest corners of the world can quickly arrive on our doorstep.”

By Gerard Boyce*

Late last year, the South African government officially announced that Cabinet had approved plans to proceed with its controversial nuclear procurement programme. As part of these plans, at least six nuclear reactors that will reportedly cost as much as ZAR 1 trillion (1 dollar = ZAR 16) are to be built by 2030. To give readers an inkling of the size of the investment this represents for South Africa, the South African government’s entire national budget for the 2015/16 financial year was approximately ZAR 1.25 trillion. In taking these steps, South Africa joins the ranks of African countries such as Kenya, Egypt and Nigeria that are determined to embark upon nuclear energy programmes and whose plans are in various stages of development. Last year was also the year in which the globe observed the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ushered in the Nuclear Age. It was also a year in which news of negotiations surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme dominated newspaper headlines worldwide. The topicality of this story fed speculation on the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation and ensured much reflection in popular and academic circles on the legacy of the Manhattan Project.

Now that the newsworthiness of this story has been eclipsed and the sentimental fallout associated with seventieth anniversary commemorations has dissipated, it might be an opportune time to examine an aspect of the Manhattan Project’s legacy that might have been overlooked during this period of reflection and introspection: the legacy it bestowed to the civilian nuclear industry. For purposes of illustration, the debate surrounding South Africa’s pending nuclear build programme will be used as a point of reference.

At the outset, clear distinctions can be drawn between nuclear projects for civilian and military purposes. Notwithstanding these differences, it will be argued that the parallels between this pioneering project and subsequent peacetime nuclear projects for non-military purposes are a lot closer and the differences between them a lot smaller than initially appears or that nuclear lobbyists would have the general public believe. This can be traced to the Manhattan Project’s beginnings as, first and foremost, an industrial enterprise that drew upon considerable amounts of scientific, financial, human and technological resources and required close coordination between various stakeholders in the military, political, academic and economic spheres. Plausibly, given these origins and the groundbreaking status of this project, the lessons learnt and the practices observed during its successful rollout could in time have become the benchmarks which were used to set the standards by which the modern civilian nuclear industry operates. If so, exploring the context within which decision-making took place at the inception of the Nuclear Age and how decision-makers on the Manhattan Project responded to these circumstances could possibly yield insights into the operations of the modern nuclear industry.

The first part of this legacy derives from the scale of the undertaking that was necessary to produce the world’s first nuclear weapons. Even in the midst of a total war where all sectors of society were pressed into the service of the homeland, the scale of the Manhattan Project and the extent to which it diverted resources from other uses is staggering. Seventy years later and not much has changed. Nuclear projects remain ambitious, expensive state-led undertakings that require the commitment of significant amounts of resources by current and future generations and the development and maintenance of a vast technological infrastructure. Granted, a society’s tolerance to absorb high costs and devote exorbitant amounts of resources towards a specific enterprise is likely higher in the firmament of war, when the moral calculus used to measure outcomes employs more ghastly metrics. The ability of the state to divert resources from other uses, its capacity to sustain whatever costs might be incurred in the pursuit of this goal and politicians’ willingness to staunchly defend this chosen course of action under any circumstances alludes to an essential factor in the success of any nuclear project: political will.

A related factor upon which the success of the Manhattan Project depended was the necessity of maintaining a strict policy of secrecy throughout the duration of the project and beyond. Experience suggests that the nuclear industry has heeded this lesson well, judging by the political protection and the raft of legislative and regulatory measures which it has sought from governments in order to ensure that its members largely operate in secret and that it survives and thrives in the face of the fiercest criticism. Given this relationship, it is perhaps no coincidence that the most ardent state advocates of nuclear power today can be found in paragons of representative democracy such as Saudi Arabia and China or that a clampdown on opponents of nuclear power has begun in two of our BRICS allies, India and Russia, where norms of openness and public accountability are struggling to take root. It is no coincidence too that the local (South African) nuclear industry was established during the apartheid era, when dissent was tantamount to treachery, and that the true costs of this earlier programme have still to be accounted for. Incidentally, preliminary reports of the manner in which a clique of insiders has conducted dealings related to South Africa’s proposed nuclear reactor building programme and evaded scrutiny of the basis upon which decisions are being made offer indications that any attempts to overturn the status quo and cultivate a culture of transparency and accountability amongst the powers that be in the nuclear sector (broadly defined) are going to be arduous undertakings.

The Manhattan Project’s legacy can also be detected in the starkness of the choice which supporters of nuclear power are keen to impress upon policymakers and members of the public and the urgency of the need to act that they are keen to emphasise. As with the decisions to build and later deploy the bomb, the decision to ‘go nuclear’ is presented as one born of necessity and the lesser of two evils. This rationale was successfully employed, for instance, to argue in favour of acquiring this weapon of mass destruction ‘before the enemy could’ or to justify the destruction wrought by this weapon in terms of the ‘estimated casualties that would be avoided by not exercising an alternative military option’. Substitute the phrases ‘to ensure energy security’ and ‘need to reduce carbon emissions associated with other sources of power generation’ into the sentence above to get the gist of how this logic has been used to frame the national debate on nuclear power in South Africa. Presenting the choice in this way serves to deflect attention from nuclear power by reducing it to merely an option amongst many. As a result, the perceived need for the development of nuclear power in the first place or the need to interrogate the merits of nuclear power independently rather than in comparison with other power sources is downplayed or avoided altogether. One cannot help but detect a hint of tactical manoeuvring in this approach, where the emphasis is on action rather than critical reflection. Focussing on tactics limits the scope to reflect upon broader issues that are related to the strategic objectives or end-goals which we collectively aim to strive towards as a nation. These include, but are not limited to, questions about the type of society which citizens would like to live in and the implied meaning of value-laden concepts like ‘progress’ and ‘development’ to which politicians and social planners profess to aspire. By their nature, these require input from a broader spectrum of society than technocrats and their political supporters.

During wartime, military prerogatives dictate that tactics and strategy be formulated by the few and that the many execute their orders without question or doubt in deference to their judgment. Democratic participation in the decision-making process by rank and file members, be it with respect to the determination of objectives or decisions regarding how best to pursue them, is not valued or prioritised in this scenario; duty and obedience are. During civilian times, concentrating decision-making power in the hands of a select group whose members believe themselves to know better than the rest of society has implications for the socio-political culture we cultivate and moulds the character of the political system in which we operate. Principally, adherence to this model increases the ability of these actors to dispense patronage to groups whose members enjoy favoured status such as politically-connected members of the elite. By doing so, it provides leverage which may enable them to secure recipients of their largesse’s support and thus retain political power. In military terms, leverage offers a way to maintain discipline and ensure compliance without resorting to threats of court martial or violence, sanctions upon which there are checks and balances during peacetime.

These are but a few of the key elements which constitute the legacy bestowed by the project that marked the beginning of the Nuclear Age. Yes, these characteristics are present in the planning and decision-making process surrounding other types of public investments. This is to be expected; after all, any industry has certain interests which members will seek to protect and advance through many of the same means whilst the steps involved in the planning process are apt to be fairly similar across projects and sectors. Despite these similarities, the long term and irreversible nature of the effects associated with nuclear energy, the scale of the investments required, the immense destructive potential of this technology if things go wrong or if used for non-civilian purposes and the scope of the societal mobilisation necessary to ensure project success distinguish projects in this sector from any other types of public investment.

Drawing these elements together, it is contended that, long after the anxiety wrought by the spectre of mutually assured destruction has receded from public consciousness and been replaced by the hope that mankind will be able to harness its greatest technological achievement for more peaceful purposes, the legacy of the project which was conceived to demonstrate the power of the atom continues to inform the vision of society that is peddled when a nation chooses nuclear power and embarks upon such a large undertaking. How long it will continue to do so, however, is something that we have power over. Now, seventy years since the dawn of the Nuclear Age when a host of African countries are contemplating the building of reactors that will likely only be decommissioned seventy years hence, more than ever may we see fit to use this power wisely.

* Dr Boyce is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Development Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.

Charlie Hebdo is never out of ideas to stoke up the flames of racism, bigotry, intolerance and hatred. Remember Aylan Kurdi, the two-year-old, whose picture lying face down on a beach in Turkey caused an international outcry over the human cost of the migrant crisis?

The magazine’s latest cartoon is about that Syrian refugee infant who drowned, as an adult committing a sex assault in Germany. The cartoon depicts Aylan’s body alongside a caption suggesting he would have become a “groper in Germany”. It follows the revelation that gangs of migrants carried out organized sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

I find the cartoon not only distasteful but also very insulting.

It is high time to correct such serious charges against migrants. The likelihood of a migrant becoming a sex pervert or a groper in Europe and western world is not more, but much less than the national average in his/her adopted country. Crime statistics in those countries are sufficient to prove me right.

For our purpose, let’s limit our discussion to Germany. German General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG) that went into force in 2006 defines sexual harassment as “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, including unwanted sexual acts and requests to carry out sexual acts, physical contact of a sexual nature, comments of a sexual nature … [that take] place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of the person concerned.”

Crime statistics show that sexual assaults against women in events like the Oktoberfest and New Year’s Eve have always been there. As a result of fear of being sexually molested or assaulted, including groping, nearly half the German women avoid joining in such events where they could be victimized. Even a year ago, before the refugee problem became a reality in Germany many German women were groped by unruly beer and wine drinking German males.

In 2010, a survey by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth stated that 60% of women said they had experienced sexual harassment in public, at the workplace, or socially. Out of those, one out of two (~50%) women said she had feared for her own safety and one woman in ten (~10%) reported actual physical violence. In 22% of cases, the incident took place at work or school. Germany, like many of the western countries, has a serious sex crime problem. [See, e.g., Wake Up Germany, You’ve Got A Serious Sexual Harassment Problem, Jan. 30, 2013]

To now put the blame squarely on the fleeing refugees that have settled in recent months in Germany is wrong. It was not clear that any of the men involved in the assault against females in Cologne were among those who arrived in Germany over the past year from conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Henriette Reker, Cologne’s mayor, who was stabbed during a campaign event in October by a German man who opposed her welcoming attitude toward migrants, sought to play down the links to refugees, after meeting with police, state and city officials. “There are no indications that this involved people who have sought shelter in Cologne as refugees,” Ms. Reker said.

Since the start of the year, Chancellor Angela Merkel has come under renewed pressure from within her own conservative bloc, with Horst Seehofer, head of the Bavarian sister party to the chancellor’s Christian Democratic Union, calling for a cap of 200,000 refugees allowed into the country per year.

It is not difficult to postulate that the event in Cologne may have been exaggerated to paint a very damning picture on the migrants that are fleeing many parts of Asia and Africa to Europe and to force Ms. Merkel to change her position on the refugee debate.

For a fleeing refugee from a war torn country committing evil acts like groping or having forcible sex with anyone local is highly unlikely. He is not stupid to commit an act that could only jeopardize his chances of getting immigrated.

So the logical question that we should answer is: who benefits from painting the fleeing migrants as sex perverts or gropers?

The fascist, xenophobic groups in many parts of Europe oppose pluralism and diversity; they are against immigrants and refugees. And, sadly, in some countries like France they have been able to exploit the current crisis to rally the crowd behind them and win elections.

The far-right and anti-immigrant groups are also strong in many parts of Germany. They oppose the influx of refugees and seized on the attacks, saying they demonstrated the dangers associated with accepting huge numbers of migrants. “It is time to send a signal,” said Christopher Freiherr von Mengersen, head of the nationalist Pro-NRW movement, based in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. “We locals can no longer put up with everything that is being routinely swept under the rug based on a false sense of tolerance.”

Such far-right groups have their supporters within the racist and bigot intelligentsia. Take, for instance, the 59-year-old Akif Pirincci, an outspoken right-winger and German writer, who has warned that Christian Germany is becoming Islamic. His books, one of which is called Germany Gone Mad, were best-sellers until last autumn, when big publishers and bookshops chose not to distribute these any more because of their message of racism and bigotry.

It is not impossible that some of the criminal elements from the fascist groups had masqueraded as migrants to implicate the wider migrant community. The Veterans Today says: “There are reports of police standing around with their hands in their pockets while nightclub bouncers come to the aid of women being groped and mobbed.  Thus, when police officials say this seems like an organized attack, we feel safe in looking at police as not only standing aside but undercover police as the likely parties involved in the assaults as well. We expect to see more incidents like these, staged by police and carefully coordinated with the press, playing on and building hysteria against not only refugees but Islam as well.”

The Charlie Hebdo magazine has been widely condemned on social media and accused of racism. Twitter users called the image “disgusting” and “tasteless”, as well as accusing the magazine of racism and Islamophobia.

The magazine’s attempt to promote intolerance and hatred against the immigrant community is simply preposterous. It’s impossible to predict how one would end up. As Jordanian queen Rania had twitted, “Aylan could’ve been a doctor, a teacher, a loving parent.”

We simply don’t know how Aylan would have turned up some 20 years later. We are surely entitled to imagine the best: if Aylan were alive, like Steve Job’s Syrian father, he would one day father another Steve Job. We simply don’t know!

Playing with anxiety, fear and the worst of our imagination is not funny, it is down right criminal.

The European Union said the steps taken against the Turkish academics who signed a declaration regarding events in the Southeast of Turkey are an extremely worrying development. They are no longer detained, but the procedures against them are ongoing.

“While reaffirming our strongest condemnation of all forms of terrorist attacks, including by the PKK, and the attack on the police headquarters in Cinar on 14 January, we restate that the fight against terrorism must fully respect obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law. Freedom of expression must be upheld, in line with the Copenhagen political criteria; an intimidating climate goes against this,” the European Union’s External Action Office said in a statement.

“We expect Turkey ensures that its legislation is implemented in a manner which is in line with European standards enshrined in the European Convention for Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights,” the statement continued/

The EU said it reiterates its strong belief that the Kurdish peace process remains the only way to solve a conflict that continues to claim far too many lives, and remains ready to support all efforts in this direction.

By Jaya Ramachandran

Political will and multilateral diplomacy marked a milestone as U.S. President Barack Obama revoked a 20-year system of sanctions against Iran and Federica Mogherini, the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and a Council member of the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), announced the lifting of EU economic blockade against Tehran on January 16.

The move followed confirmation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran has complied with the terms of July 2015 landmark deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPO) – which provides restrictions and international verification of Iran’s nuclear energy program to ensure it is only able to be used for peaceful purposes. The decision to lift the sanctions was formally adopted by all 28 member states of the European Union (EU).

“As Iran has fulfilled its commitments, today, multilateral and national economic and financial sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme are lifted in accordance with the JCPOA.” Mogherini said.

The EU and E3+3 countries, consisting of the People’s Republic of China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the U.S., and Iran will also cooperate in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, in the framework of the JCPOA, she added.

“This achievement clearly demonstrates that with political will, perseverance, and through multilateral diplomacy, we can solve the most difficult issues and find practical solutions that are effectively implemented,” Mogherini said in a joint statement, which was subsequently read out by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Persian.

“UN sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme are lifted. United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015), which endorsed the JCPOA, will from now onwards, together with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), be the sole international legal framework related to Iran’s nuclear activities, terminating provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2007), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015),” the statement added.

A total of 92 Iranians and 466 companies or groups, including the Iranian central bank, were affected by the EU sanctions. The lifting of U.S. economic sanctions on Iran unlocks access to $100 billion in frozen overseas assets and unleashes new opportunities for its battered economy.

Iranian Transport Minister Abbas Akhondi, for example, said beginning of January that his country had reached a deal with the European consortium Airbus to buy 114 passenger planes as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, at a press conference highlighting the implementation of the Iran deal, said that the threat of a nuclear weapon has been reduced and diplomacy has shown to be successful. “Today marks the first day of a safer world,” Kerry declared in Vienna. “This evening, we are really reminded once again of diplomacy’s power to tackle significant challenges.”

The U.S also sees the deal as a useful first step toward cooperation with Iran on other key issues such as ending the Syrian conflict and other Middle East crises. As such it is a foreign policy triumph for U.S. President Barack Obama.

The U.S. and Iran used the occasion of ‘Iran nuclear deal implementation day’ to announce a swap of prisoners. Four Americans imprisoned in Iran were exchanged for seven Iranians held or charged in the United States.

Four Americans — Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, pastor Saeed Abedini and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari — have been flown from Iran to Switzerland on a Swiss plane and then brought to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, for medical treatment.

In return, the U.S. committed to either pardon or drop charges against seven Iranians — six of them dual citizens — accused or convicted of violating U.S. sanctions. The U.S. will also drop Interpol “red notices” — essentially arrest warrants — on a handful of sought Iranian fugitives.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry linked the trust built between Iran and the United States over the past two years of talks to the possibility of securing the prisoner swap.

According to the Press TV, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded to the announcement by hailing the Iranian nation in a tweet for the “glorious victory.”

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi said that Iran gained its “right” through support from the Iranian nation and Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Many world leaders and politicians respond to the implementation of Iran’s historic nuclear deal with world powers.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also hailed the agreement implementation.

“This achievement demonstrates that international proliferation concerns are best addressed through dialogue and patient diplomacy,” said Ban’s spokesman in a statement. “This is a significant milestone that reflects the good faith effort by all parties to fulfill their agreed commitments,” he added.

In a statement released by the IAEA, the agency’s Director General Yukiyo Amano said that “Relations between Iran and the IAEA now enter a new phase. It is an important day for the international community. I congratulate all those who helped make it a reality.”

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond released a statement saying that “Years of patient and persistent diplomacy, and difficult technical work, have borne fruit as we now implement the deal.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also welcomed the deal, calling it an “important step for peace and security implementation.”

“At a time when the region is seeing immense challenges and strong tensions, I hope that the spirit of cooperation that marked the conclusion of the deal can also be brought to all the other regional issues,” he said.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also greeted the announcement as a “historic success for diplomacy.” He added that the diplomatic victory could lead to success “in defusing other urgent crises and conflicts in the region, especially regarding the civil war in Syria.”

Leading US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton praised Obama for implementing the nuclear agreement, yet claiming that concerns still remain. “Iran is still violating UN Security Council resolutions with its ballistic missile program, which should be met with new sanctions designations and firm resolve,” Clinton said.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated Tel Aviv’s anti-Iran rhetoric, saying, “Even after signing the nuclear deal, Iran has not relinquished its ambition to obtain nuclear weapons.” Netanyahu added that Israel would “follow the implementation of the deal and warn of any violation.” [IDN-InDepthNews – 17 January 2016]

Attacks on major cities or capitals are becoming more frequent and range from the use of primitive tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to the increasingly more sophisticated TTPs, which involve multiple personnel attacking either one or several targets simultaneously such as the rolling attack in Jakarta on 14 January 2016. Why are cities targets and how are terrorists targetting cities?

ByAhmed Salah Hashim*

In 2015, capitals around the world suffered devastating assaults by terrorists. Paris was subject to two devastating terrorist events, Beirut was hit by terrorists linked to Islamic State in an attack that was largely ignored, while further to the east, Iraqi cities have been subjected to a wide range of terrorist assaults, the like of which have not been suffered by cities in the rest of the world.

In recent years many cities have been the targets of terrorist attacks; these attacks range from relatively simple but still quite deadly assaults to the more complex assaults that we have recently witnessed in Paris. It is likely that we will continue to witness assaults by committed and fanatical terrorist groups on major urban centres; the attack of January 14 on Jakarta is a harbinger of more to come.

Mass Casualty Urban Terrorist Assault: Three Kinds

Urban centres constitute the battle space for terrorists. Rural areas do not. This is in contrast to bona fide guerrilla or insurgent organisations for whom both rural and urban areas constitute the battle spaces depending on circumstances, opportunities, and opponent strengths and weaknesses. The most dangerous urban terrorist attacks are what can be referred to as the mass casualty urban terrorist assault (MCUTA). This is different from an attack on a single point by two or more terrorists who may be trained only in either exploding themselves as suicide bombers against a particular target or to place bombs against a particular target and then abscond.

There are three kinds of MCUTA following assessment of the empirical evidence of the past decade. The first involves attacks on targets of opportunity by teams of terrorists. The attack in Jakarta on 14 January 2016 can be classed as such an operation in which the ultimate goal of the attackers is just to attack iconic places – business district – where large numbers gather.

The second and more sophisticated level involves the conduct of raids by well-prepared and well-trained terrorist operatives against a single target, which is assaulted by teams of operatives with overwhelming force (the al-Shabaab attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, the Charlie Hebdo attack of January 2015 in Paris, which also included targets of opportunity).

A variant of this includes the attacks on Madrid commuter station and the attacks in London in 2007. The third and most sophisticated level of MCUTA is a ‘raid’ or series of raids by teams or squads (2-5 personnel per team or squad) attacking multiple targets (near) simultaneously in coordinated attacks against a variety of soft targets in a city (restaurants, business complexes, malls, cafes, train stations). The iconic examples of these sophisticated raids are, incontrovertibly, the Mumbai attacks of 2008 and the November 2015 Paris attacks.

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs)

There are key TTPs associated with all of the MCUTA levels, but particularly with the third and most sophisticated level. First, the terrorist personnel are not merely suicide bombers whose purpose is to detonate themselves or a vehicle, although that may be the case at the first and second MCUTA levels. In the third level, however, they are most likely to be members of a new category – suicide assault teams – who know they are likely to die in the prosecution of their mission, which may be to hold a particular building for a specific time period while they systematically butcher people.

These urban suicide assault teams historically emerged out of the violent urban combat in Grozny, Chechnya in the 1990s and more recently in Syria and Iraq, where Islamic State has created sappers and assault troopers known as the inghimasi, literally, ‘the immersers.’ The inghimasi are IS’ shock or assault units who breach enemy (Syrian and Iraqi) defended positions.

In the context of the urban terrorist assault, the purpose of these suicide assault teams or ‘storm troopers’ is to assault buildings with overwhelming firepower, win the firefight against the first police responders (invariably not the heavily armed SWAT teams or paramilitary police squads), keep medical and civil defence units at bay, and proceed to kill their civilian targets. The individuals within these assault teams will invariably wear an explosive suicide belt.

Coming: More Sophisticated Attacks?

Second, this category of terrorists is not interested in retaining hostages as bargaining chips for the simple fact that these terrorists have no intention of getting out alive. They intend to kill before they are killed or kill themselves. The people they take hostage are actually “doomed captives,” to be executed after a specified time period in which the terrorists gain as much media mileage from their act of brutality, which will be crowned by mass slaughter. The only hope for the “doomed captives” is escape or rescue in short order by well-trained police or military special operations forces.

MCUTA at the third level are complex attacks, which are characterised by coordination (multiple teams of attackers whose assault is swift and designed to overwhelm existing resources) and the use of hybrid or varied capabilities – assault rifles, RPGs, explosions, suicide bombings, and diversionary attacks.

In the coming years, we may see even more sophisticated evolutions of MCUTA: well-planned diversionary attacks, follow-on attacks after the first attacks by a second tier of attacks, and possibly the incorporation of low-level chemical attacks.

*Ahmed Salah Hashim is an Associate Professor in Strategic Studies with the Military Studies Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Holly Whitman

If you’re an American driver, it might be difficult to look past low gas prices and toward the larger political landscape. After all, when getting from point A to point B becomes cheaper than it has been for some time, political and economic tensions a world away hardly seem of consequence.

However, although oil prices have been dramatically and consistently lower in recent weeks and months, worsening disagreement and mistrust between Iran and Saudi Arabia has seen oil prices rising somewhat, and may bring about continued uncertainty if things don’t return to some kind of balance.

What’s Going on in the Middle East?

Although oil prices remain low across the developed world – February forecasts are calling for a price of around $37 per barrel – prices rose by as much as 4 percent across Europe this past week. We have Middle East tensions to thank for it.

According to Richard Mallinson, an analyst for Energy Aspects: “What is coming back to the surface is how deeply divided and complex the Middle East is at present.”

Whereas OPEC nations have historically been able to put their differences aside long enough to reach an accord on matters concerning oil prices and supply levels, unrest and mutual distrust have fractured this already tenuous alliance. This is particularly true of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors: Political strife between these nations has sidelined economic cooperation and has created an effective vacuum of central leadership and consensus.

As a result, OPEC nations are now competing against each other for customer loyalty the same way China and India do, by manipulating prices in a race to the bottom. Simply put, oil prices are historically low because OPEC countries no longer cooperate with each other – instead, they are competing.

In other words, it sounds startlingly like the spirit of capitalism has come, perhaps temporarily, to the Middle East.

The Heart of the Conflict

Iran, with Venezuela in tow, has recently been calling for a cut in oil production: a course of action that would almost certainly see oil prices rise once again. This recommendation has largely been ignored by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. At a December meeting, OPEC leadership failed to reach a consensus on anything of substance, let alone production targets.

Of course, while tensions between Saudis and Iranians are arguably at the heart of this, a great many other factors are in play as well. For example, as part of a bipartisan spending agreement reached late last year, the U.S. has lifted its ban on crude oil exports for the first time in 40 years. As a result, analysts are saying that the U.S. could bulk up the world’s supply of oil even further, which could help keep things stable if there’s a global shortage or if OPEC cuts output.

In other words, we are uniquely positioned to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil and are better equipped to weather further destabilization of the region.

Another of the myriad factors in play is weather and climate. We are seeing unseasonably warm weather across much of the world, which has further depressed the price of natural gas and oil. Whether you blame long-term effects like climate change or short-term outliers like El Niño, the result is the same: cheap oil for everybody.

Unfortunately, the same prognosticators calling for continued low prices for oil also worry that tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia could fuel unrest in other parts of the region, like the violence in Yemen and the Syrian civil war.

What This Means for Investors

Back in the United States, this continued tension among the world’s oil-producing nations has meant a rise in the sales of large vehicles. There has also been a fall in stock prices for alternative energies, the most promising of which remains solar power. It’s plain to see that both of these outcomes betray American consumers and investors as somewhat shortsighted.

A good play in the long game is investing in oil while prices are low, while still profiting from short-term disruptions by making longer-term investments in alternative energies. No matter which horse you want to bet on, it simply doesn’t make much sense to wait until OPEC gets its act together and the price of oil climbs back to where it was.

All opinions are the author’s and do not reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article was published.

India’s policy towards Sri Lanka shifted from active engagement (1983-1990) to a near hands-off policy in the aftermath of the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE. The end of the war against the Tamil militants in Sri Lanka opened up a few possibilities for India to take the bilateral relations ahead.

However, with the incumbent government led by Maithripala Sirisena assuming power, a series of sincere and genuine attempts at reconciliation and peace building is being made in Sri Lanka opening up opportunities for India to engage Sri Lanka at all levels- diplomatic, political and economic to facilitate the process.

One of the major concerns for India’s peace and security in its neighborhood stem from the ethnic imbroglio between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils in Sri Lanka which has, over the years, adversely impacted India’s relationship with Sri Lanka. Ethnic linkages between the Sri Lankan Tamil population and the people of Tamil Nadu of India have been a source of worry for both countries rather than a binding factor primarily due to the protracted ethnic conflict and unsettled issue of accommodating political demands of Tamil population in Sri Lanka. Any further prolongation of the conflict or discontentment would create space for extra-regional powers’ intervention and would be a source of India’s security concerns given Sri Lanka’s geostrategic importance for and geographical proximity with India. Therefore, India must aim at durable peace in Sri Lanka in its own security interest.

Sri Lanka’s strategic salience to India can be gauged from the fact that it is adjacent to the shipping lanes that cater to 65 per cent of India’s oil needs. It is noteworthy that in recognition of its importance in the emerging Indian Ocean strategic scenario, Sri Lanka was invited to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Council meeting as a dialogue partner.

Enhanced Chinese Footprints in Sri Lanka

India’s disengagement from the Sri Lankan government during the war against Tamil militants created opportunity for China to enter the arena. The support and assistance extended by China to the Sri Lankan government during the war ensured that the former acquired a lot of strategic space and credibility in the latter. As China’s large chunk of trade passes through the sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka also used it to its advantage. It had procured sophisticated arms and ammunitions as well as diplomatic support in exchange of strategic concessions.

While the Sri Lankan State waged an all-out war against the Tamil militants, China not only generously supplied weapons but it also encouraged Pakistan to train Sri Lankan Air Force pilots and supply small arms. While China sold Jian-7 fighters, anti-aircraft guns and JY-11 3D air surveillance radars to the Sri Lankan army, Pakistan took care of the small arm requirements.

Sri Lanka is seen as an “important hub on the Maritime Silk Road” by China. The Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka ranges from infrastructure development, economic aid, oil exploration, investments, trade, and a strong diplomatic support to the island state at the time of its need, especially in the context of human rights accountability issue that emerged after the end of ‘Elam War IV’.

Chinese investment in infrastructure development in Sri Lanka has expanded rapidly, including the strategically situated commercial deep-sea port in Hambantota which was former President Rajapakse’s home constituency and the two-phase coal power plant in Norochcholai. Other significant infrastructural projects supported by China in the island state include Katunayake-Colombo Expressway, Maththala Airport, Colombo South Harbour Expansion Project and the Center for Performing Arts in Colombo. Statistically speaking, funding from China accounts for more than half of Sri Lanka’s construction and development loans. In value terms, it is estimated at over USD six billion –more than any other country.

Infrastructural development bearing deep strategic implications is the main Chinese footprint in Sri Lanka that has roused considerable attention in India. The most talked about project is Hambantota port. Colombo attempts to project that “the Chinese interest in the Hambantota port is purely commercial”. However, the harbor is strategically located not only for the Chinese merchant vessels and cargo carriers sailing to and from Africa and the Middle East to make a stopover, but can also be used by any military fleet. A strong foothold for the Chinese in Hambantota would allow them to have dominance over a vast area of the Indian Ocean extending from Australia in the east, Africa in the West and up to Antarctica in the south. It may not be difficult for China to closely monitor all ships – military and non-military-that shuttles between east and west coasts of India encircling Sri Lanka.

India and the Post-Conflict Scenario in Sri Lanka

The end of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka created the hope for India to contain growing Chinese influence and enhance its own by playing a pivotal role in securing sustainable peace by looking for addressing the root causes of the conflict. The termination of the armed ethnic conflict witnessed the emergence of a major humanitarian challenge, with nearly 3, 00,000 Tamil civilians housed in camps for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Under these circumstances, the Indian government undertook a robust programme of assistance to assist IDPs resume their normal lives as quickly as possible. In June 2009, the former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had announced a grant of INR 5 billion (SLR 12 billion) for relief and rehabilitation in Sri Lanka.

India also consistently advocated the need for IDPs to be resettled to their original habitations as early as possible. Taking a major step in this direction, India provided shelter assistance for constructing temporary housing for IDPs. In addition to this, agricultural implements were supplied to assist resettled families commence their livelihood generating activities. As the need of de-mining was a major stumbling-block on the pace of resettlement, the Indian government totally financed seven Indian de-mining teams, which took up the task in various sectors in northern Sri Lanka to accelerate resettlement. With the shift away from relief and rehabilitation to reconstruction and development, the Govt. of India laid stress upon the housing requirements of the IDPs.

Since agriculture is the principal means of livelihood in the areas affected by the conflict, India supported this sector through a wide-ranging programme for agricultural renewal. Sri Lanka is one of the major recipients of development credit given by India. These are being used for repair and up-gradation of various damaged railway links and renovation of Airport, Harbours and power plants. India also continues to assist a large number of smaller development projects in areas like education, health, transport connectivity, small and medium enterprise development and training in many parts of the country through its grant funding.

India was the largest source of foreign direct investment for Sri Lanka in 2010 (US $110 million). Sri Lanka has long been a priority destination for direct investment from India. India is among the four largest overall investors in Sri Lanka with cumulative investments over US$600 million and the last few years has also witnessed an increasing trend of Sri Lankan investments into India.

However, India’s relations with Sri Lanka took a downturn from March 2012 when not satisfied with Colombo’s sincerity in carrying forward assurances on reconciliation and in finding long-term political settlement, India voted in favour of the US-sponsored resolution. On the contrary, China used the opportunity in its favour by supporting Sri Lanka in voting against the resolution. India voted against Sri Lanka further in the UN Human Rights Council in March 2013 in an attempt to step up pressure on Sri Lanka to address the legitimate concerns of its Tamil minorities.

Sri Lanka’s disappointment with India was very much conspicuous when India voted in favour of UNHRC resolutions. Under the Mahinda Rajapaksa’s leadership, the Sri Lankan government was allegedly delaying democratic process in the Northern Province. It was the Indian insistence that finally led to provincial council elections. On September 21, 2013 elections were held in three provinces of Sri Lanka-the Sinhala majority North Western Province (NWP) and the Central Province (CP) and the Tamil-dominated Northern Province. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) secured a landslide victory in the Northern Provincial Council, winning 30 of the 38 seats, polling 78 percent of the votes.

Recent attempts at Ethnic Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Challenges and Opportunities before India

Ever since the incumbent Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena came to power, he set the right tone for the sixth anniversary of the end of the civil war (May 2015) in the island nation and said that the truth of what happened in the conflict needed to be established and justice delivered. While Mahinda Rajapaksa celebrated the end of the war as “Victory Day” for five years, Sirisena re-christened it in 2015 as “Remembrance Day.” The change in the nomenclature signaled a change in the Sri Lankan government’s perceptions on the war. For the first time, the Tamils felt that they, too, could take part in the observance, if not the celebrations of the anniversary. Remembrance included the sacrifices made by one and all, irrespective of their ethnicity.

It is noteworthy that the Sri Lankan government under Sirisena’s leadership has taken a series of steps to win the confidence of the Tamils. For instance, many political prisoners were released, large tracts of military-controlled land were returned to their original Tamil owners, and investigations into civilian deaths were begun. However, there is, as of now, no clarity on the happenings during the last few days of the civil war. There are reports that many Tamils were shot at close range after the actual war had ended. As long as these charges are not probed and the guilty punished, reconciliation will remain a pipe-dream.

The Sri Lankan government has promised a Truth Commission, a Judicial Commission with a Special Prosecutor, an Office for Reparations and another for Tracing Missing Persons, substitution of the Prevention of Terrorism Act by one based on international norms and a new constitution to address the Tamils’ grievances. For the first time, Colombo has wholeheartedly accepted international assistance to run domestic mechanisms. It has agreed to the US proposal to present to the Council a binding “collaborative resolution”. At first glance, Sri Lanka seems to be heading for peace and harmony, but in reality, the road ahead is tough.

However, the Tamils too are not sanguine about the peace prospects. Even the moderate Tamil National Alliance has reservations regarding the Sri Lankan government’s intentions. Tamils wonder if the armed forces, seen by the Sinhalese as war heroes, will be hauled up for war crimes. They see little likelihood of the government enacting war crimes laws with retrospective effect, or even putting in place an effective witness protective regime. Admittedly, post-Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka is moving towards democracy, but the Tamils fear they may not get to enjoy the ethnic rights.

Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Ranil Wickremesinghe in September 2015 co-sponsored with the United States and an overwhelming majority of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), a resolution which ties Sri Lanka to far-reaching institutional reforms for bringing about reconciliation and accountability. Among the reforms, one which will have an immediate impact on the ethnic question is the establishment of an ad hoc mechanism with the participation of foreign judges and other legal personnel to try cases of alleged war crimes and rights abuses. Sri Lanka’s historic step at Geneva stemmed from the desire of Sirisena’s regime to abjure divisive and confrontationist domestic and international politics, which had taken the country to rack and ruin, and opt for dialogue and accommodation.

India, which faces potentially destabilizing fallout from the Lankan Tamil problem, will certainly be relieved by these developments. Nevertheless, there is possibility that the Sinhalese ‘nationalists’ led by Rajapaksa would denounce the stand taken in Geneva as a ‘sellout’ to recapture power. But, unlike its predecessors, if the present government implements its commitments and convinces the majority Sinhalese to accept them, it would go a long way in satisfying the concerns of the Tamil minority and mitigating the possibilities of distrust and the resultant peace will benefit the stakeholders. However, as the President Sirisena pointed out on September 18, 2015, it will be a “long way” for Sri Lanka to achieve national reconciliation and so far, the over-securitization of the Sri Lankan State has adversely affected the peace-building process.

This reconciliation process needs to be accelerated and India must engage the Sri Lankan government diplomatically, politically and economically. India must convince different sections in Sri Lanka of the crucial need for reconciliation, fundamentally in its own interest. For this, India has to reach out to the opposition, the monks and the Muslim community. India has to work hard to win over the trust of the Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka. The Tamil population of Sri Lanka should be reassured of India’s commitment towards the realisation of its legitimate aspirations within a united framework of the Sri Lankan state. The Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka should be persuaded by the Indian government to accept the peace overtures if and when extended by the Sri Lankan Government and stay away from adopting extremist tactics.

The peace initiatives undertaken by the present government of Sri Lanka have opened up possibilities for India to engage Sri Lanka in the economic sector more than ever before. Both the countries are engaged in deliberations to ink Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) to elevate their bilateral FTA to the next higher level. This would chiefly include the service sector. The key sectors that would reap benefits from CEPA are tourism, computer software, advertising, financial and non-financial services, health, retail services and tourism. This will create avenues of employment. During the Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickremasinghe’s visit to India in September 2015, the proposed CEPA was discussed and committed to be drafted by December 2015. If properly implemented, this will lead to more extensive trade between the two countries aimed at correcting the severe trade imbalance.

In the last few years, India has committed over $1,100 million in economic assistance programmes for Sri Lanka. Needless to say that the success of these programmes would depend on the extent to which this assistance is used by the Sri Lankan authorities in moving forward in the direction of reconciliation. Based on this, India should frame an extensive programme of co-operation with Sri Lanka with a view to radically transforming its economy.

Though there is a growing feeling among certain sections in India that New Delhi lacks necessary leverage over Colombo, the TNA and many ‘moderate’ civil society activists in Sri Lanka maintain that India can considerably influence the Sri Lankan government as it has a credible international voice and an increasing global role. They hold the view that dialogue with the Tamil leaders is important and the cumulative grievances of the Tamils have to be addressed for securing durable peace and stability in Sri Lanka. It is believed that India can play the role of the facilitator for arriving at a political solution between the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil community.

Nevertheless, Indian diplomacy faces the challenge of enabling a meaningful process of reconciliation. It is argued that India can use its leverage with the political groups in Sri Lanka provided there is right political will in this direction. It is hoped that the perceptible change in the electoral dynamics of India after Bharatiya Jantata Party (BJP) came to power emerging as the single largest party in the lower house of the parliament under the leadership of Modi would allow India more independence to deal with the Sri Lankan issue by rising above the regional politics.

REFERENCES
Behuria, Ashok K.(2011), Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka:Time to Move Beyond Complacency, Strategic Analysis, vol 35, no 5,September 2011, pp 739-744.
DeVotta Neil, ‘When Individual States, and Systems Collide’, in Sumit Ganguly (ed.) (2010), India’s Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,p.32
Galtung, Johan (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means, London:Sage
Ghosh, Partha S. (2003), Ethnicity versus Nationalism: The Devolution Discourse in Sri Lanka, New Delhi: Sage.
Jain, B.M. (2011),India in the new South Asia, Strategic, Military and Economic Concerns in the Age of Nuclear Diplomacy, New Delhi, Viva Books
Liyanage, Sumanasiri(2011),The Tamil National Question in Sri Lanka: Current Dynamics and Future Trends in Smruti S Pattanaik(ed.),South Asia: Envisioning a Regional Future,New Delhi, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
–(2014), Unfinished Peace in a Diverse Society: Some Thoughts on the ‘Peace’ Process in Sri Lanka in Hussain Akmal & Dubey Muchkund (ed), Democracy, Sustainable Development and Peace: New Perspectives on South Asia, New Delhi: Oxford University Press ,pp.406-420, 200-220
–&Silva Thilanka( 2014) , Post-armed Conflict Trajectories in Sri Lanka in Upadhyaya Priyankar and Kumar Samrat Schmiem, Peace and Conflict: The South Asian Experience, New Delhi: Foundation Books.
Malone, David M. (2011), Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy, New Delhi, Oxford.
Mukarji,Apratim(2015), Colombo restores New Delhi’s Faith, Mainstream, Vol LIII, No 40, September 26,pp. 7-8
Rajasingham, Darini (2010),One Year After Terrorism: Sri Lanka Needs to Demilitarise Reconstruction and Development for Sustainable Peace, Strategic Analysis,vol 34, no 5 ,September 2010, pp.
Ray,Jayanta Kumar (2011),India’s Foreign Relations, 1947-2007, New Delhi, Routledge.
Senanayake,Darini Rajasingham (2009), From National Security to Human Security: The Challenge of Winning Peace in Sri Lanka, Strategic Analysis, vol 33, no 6, November, pp 820-827.
Sikri,Rajiv(2009),Challenge and Strategy: Rethinking India’s Foreign Policy,New Delhi,Sage
Sridharan,E. (ed.) (2011), International Relations Theory and South Asia, New Delhi, Oxford.
Suryanarayan,V (2014),War is Over but Ethnic Reconciliation Eludes Sri Lanka in Maneesha Tikekar (ed.),Constitutionalism and Democracy in South Asia, New Delhi, Oxford University Press
–(2014),Discontent in North Sri Lanka, The New Indian Express,
5 March.
–( 2013),Hopes and Fears in Sri Lanka, The New Indian Express, 3 October
The New Indian Express, 16 September 2015

Beginning of 2016, the Saudi Arabian dictatorship went on a beheading spree. 47 people were decapitated, among them the Shiite cleric and civil rights activist Nimr al-Nimr. None of them had a fair trial. Now, it’s Ashraf Fayadh’s turn, a Palestinian born in Saudi Arabia.

As in many other cases, the charges against Fayadh are made up. On 17 November 2015, he was sentenced to death for “apostasy”. The Saudi Arabian Kangaroo courts have charged him with the “questioning of religion” and for the “dissemination of atheism”. Arrested in January 2014, Fayadh hasn’t seen a lawyer, and the trial was held in camera.

Fayadh belongs to a nascent art scene. He has curated art shows in Jeddah and at the Venice Biennale. Originally, Fayadh was sentenced to four years in prison and 800 lashes by a court in the city of Abha. Despite his repentance, his appeal was dismissed and he was retried by another Kangaroo court, which passed the final deadly verdict. So far, not a single evidence was presented. There are rumors that he has been sentenced to death because of his Palestinian origin though born in Saudi Arabia.

Although the Saudi Arabian dictatorship is the closest ally of the West, the Western governments seem to have no interest in preventing the unlawful beheadings. One argument is that Saudi Arabia is part of the coalition against terrorism while the fundamentalist regime is the largest supporter of international terrorism against the West. ISIS is a “Saudi army in disguise”. Therefore, the Obama administration has only halfheartedly fought these terrorists until Russia has intervened alongside Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

The present Saudi king has been the Godfather of international terrorism, dating back to the creation of Al Qaeda and the establishment of a terror infrastructure in Bosnia-Herzegovina.1 His son, the current Saudi defense minister is waging a terror war against Yemen. Instead of supporting the most devilish regime under the sun, the West should go for a regime change in Saudi Arabia to get rid of the myth of “international terrorism” that the West’s closest ally has established against its so-called Western friends.

Notes:
1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-will-this-war-frenzy-lead-what-stinks-in-saudi-aint-the-camel-dung-isis-is-a-saudi-army-in-disguise/5495036

United States President Barack Obama carries around tiny Hindu Lord Hanuman statue in his pocket.

In a live post-State of the Union interview with Ingrid Nilsen, American YouTube personality, from the East Room of the White House on January 15, Obama showed things he carried around all the time and took out from his pocket which he described as: This is Hindu little statuette of monkey god Hanuman that a woman gave me. This video-interview is posted on The White House website. BBC gave this story the title: “What does Obama keep in his pocket?”

Candidate Obama also reportedly carried small Hanuman figurine as a lucky charm during electioneering.

In a statement in Nevada today, distinguished Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, who is making efforts to erect a privately funded statue of Lord Hanuman in Arkansas State Capitol grounds in Little Rock, welcomed Obama’s continued interest in Lord Hanuman and added that if he wanted to explore Hinduism further, he or other Hindu scholars would be glad to assist.

According to Rajan Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, Lord Hanuman is greatly revered and his worship is very popular among Hindus and there are numerous temples dedicated to him. Son of wind-god, besides incredible strength and changing shape at will and flying, he is believed to be a perfect grammarian, great scholar and excelled in all the sciences. According to a legend, even while he was still an infant, he intimidated the sun. In Mahabharata war, flag on Arjuna’s chariot driven by Lord Krishna displayed Lord Hanuman. According to a belief, all the planets are under his control.

There are about three million Hindus in USA.

By Vijay Sakhuja*

‘Continuity and change’, ‘continuity and no change’ and ‘new challenges and opportunities’ are important formulations for any geopolitical and geostrategic forecasting. These help analysts to understand events to develop trend lines. In the Indian Ocean, at least four issues would merit attention during 2016.

First, the primacy of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) in the regional political, economic and security discourse will continue. Indonesia took over the chairmanship from Australia in 2015 and South Africa would assume charge in 2017. The Bengaluru Declaration (2011), the Gurgaon Communique (2012) and the Perth Communiques (2013 and 2014) noted with concern the maritime security environment in the Indian Ocean, and called upon regional countries to cooperate.

The other important multilateral forum, i.e. the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), addressed the regional security agenda by proactively engaging in discussions on piracy in the Gulf of Aden. These multilateral organisations will continue to lead and drive the regional maritime security agenda of the region.

The rise in piracy in the Gulf of Aden led to the promulgation of High Risk Area (HRA) stretching from the Somali coast to as far as 1,400 nautical miles towards Maldives, including the west coast of India. Several affected countries argued that since piracy in the Gulf of Aden had declined from sixteen incidents in 2012 to two incidents in 2014, the HRA label be withdrawn. It was only in 2015 that the area covered by the HRA was reduced but the issue still remains.

Another significant development in the Indian Ocean is that of Seychelles taking over the Chairmanship of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) on 1 January 2016 with a near clean piracy ‘slate’. Seychelles is expected to focus its attention on Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing by foreign vessels in the Indian Ocean. It will also provide Seychelles a unique opportunity to invest its politico-diplomatic capital to highlight the issue in Somali waters, given that this was the very reason that prompted the Somali fishermen to stand up to fight foreign fishing vessels and turn into pirates. Also, IUU can potentially undermine the durability of what has been achieved in the Gulf of Aden by the international community over the last five years.

The Indian Ocean also witnessed the growth of Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC), which emerged as a response to the rising graph of piracy in the Gulf of Aden. These quickly turned into an attractive counter-measure option and triggered a huge demand. As of 2013, nearly 140 security firms reportedly operated in the Northern Indian Ocean. PMSC vessels carried weapons and ammunition but soon came under scrutiny and suspicion after two harrowing incidents in India. In the case of Enrica Lexie, the Italian marines embarked onboard to provide security and opened fire on an Indian vessel off the coast of Kerala, killing two fishermen, which led to a severe diplomatic exchange including the case being brought before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). In the second case, ‘Seaman Guard Ohio’, a ship owned by a US-based private company was intercepted while carrying weapons in India’s contiguous waters and the crew has been convicted. This too may result in a diplomatic standoff between the US and India.

Second, Blue Economy will continue to be high on the agenda of several Indian Ocean countries individually or collectively to harness the seas in a sustainable manner. Significantly, several political leaders of IORA countries have endorsed the concept and states are keen to harness the potential and engage in sustainable development of living and non-living resources of the seas to advance economic growth and enhance human security.

Given that the Indian Ocean is a large sea space with a number of seas and bays, a pan-Indian Ocean approach to address collectively the importance of Blue Economy will be on the agenda of the IORA. This issue is expected to percolate into other groupings and sub-groupings such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and African Union (AU). Several countries of the above groupings and sub-groupings have already endorsed and internalised Blue Economy in policy, bilateral relations and international transactions.

A number of typologies for the development of Blue Economy are plausible. These are ‘India-Maldives-Sri Lanka-Seychelles-Mauritius’, ‘India-Pakistan-Oman-Iran’, ‘India-Bangladesh-Myanmar’, ‘India-Sri Lanka-Indonesia’ as also among the IORA-SAARC-BIMSTEC, ASEAN and AU. This would have to be led by the IORA.

Third, the Indian Ocean is witnessing a silent yet aggressive naval build-up, which features modern and sophisticated naval hardware – aircraft carriers, submarines, expeditionary platforms, destroyers and frigates and missile-capable craft to conduct complex operations. The Indian Navy is a formidable force and nearly 48 warships are under construction, which include one aircraft carrier, one nuclear and six conventional submarines, and a variety of destroyers, frigates and corvettes.

These trends are indicative of the extended strategic reach of the Indian Navy from the littorals deep into the high seas.

The Pakistani Navy will continue to be a ‘lean and mean’ force focused on sea denial capability. The Iranian Navy is the most powerful in the Gulf region and would enjoy numerical and firepower superiority over its neighbours. The South African Navy has identified itself as the ‘Guardian of the Cape Sea Route’, and would focus on low-end maritime threats and challenges and disaster response at sea. Australia’s interests span the Pacific and the Indian Ocean and the government has plans to plans to spend nearly US$89 billion over the next 20 years to acquire new ships and submarines. Likewise, the Indonesian Navy plans to have three operational fleets comprising of a strike force, a patrol force, a Marine Corps component and other supporting elements. As far as the smaller countries are concerned, their naval acquisitions would be limited to coastal security.

The security dynamics in the Indian Ocean also feature naval nuclear capability involving India and Pakistan. The Indian Navy operates one nuclear-propelled submarine (INS Chakra on lease from Russia) and another indigenously built nuclear-propelled submarine (INS Arihant) would be ready for operations in 2016.

There are plans to build two more nuclear submarines fitted with submarine-launched ballistic missiles and fit short-range ballistic missiles on warships. In the case of Pakistan, it has chosen to convert conventional submarines and warships and fit these with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which will help it to obtain notional parity to overcome conventional naval asymmetry as also a sense of assurance against the large Indian Navy.

Fourth, the presence of China in the Indian Ocean has received mixed political, economic and security reactions; while some see China as an opportunity, for others it is a challenge. As far as opportunities are concerned, the 21st century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) initiative would help these countries develop maritime infrastructure that is critical for economic growth. On the other hand, these projects are seen as dual-use facilities and part of the Chinese naval strategy for the Indian Ocean wherein these facilities are meant to support PLA Navy’s future operations in the Indian Ocean. In that context, China has successfully obtained access to the port of Djibouti at the mouth of the Red Sea. This would help China to forward deploy its forces in the Indian Ocean.

Further, the Djibouti base will also serve Chinese naval engagements in the Mediterranean Sea in support of the MSR, safety of shipping, and countering piracy. Interestingly, China, through this base, can support its strategic engagements with Russia. It will be useful to recall that the Chinese and the Russian navies held joint naval exercises – ‘Mediterranean Sea Cooperation-2015’ – in the Mediterranean Sea to enhance naval interoperability and “jointly deal with maritime security threats” but assured that the exercises were not targeted against any country.

Chinese warships are now a common sight in the Indian Ocean for a number of tasks i.e. counter-piracy operations and non-combatant evacuation operations such as those in Yemen and Libya. It is fair to argue that the 2015 Defence White Paper and the 21st century MSR provide the necessary political and strategic rationale for the PLA Navy to be deployed in the Indian Ocean. In fact the White paper is a carte blanche for the Chinese naval planners to conceptualise expansive strategic geography in which the PLA Navy is expected to operate in the future in support of national interests.

Finally, the Indian Ocean security environment is expected to remain complex and acquisition by regional countries would continue unabated. Chinese naval interests and activities in the Indian Ocean will expand through infrastructure development, military sales, naval operations and formal access to other facilities other than at Djibouti. The sighting and presence of Chinese submarines should not come as a surprise as was the case in 2014 and 2015. At the multilateral level, in 2016, the relevance of IORA and IONS will witness ‘continuity & no change’.

* Vijay Sakhuja
Director, National Maritime Foundation, New Delhi

By Robie Mitchell*

A political pundit is feeling overworked from all the speculating that he had to do on the weekend talk shows, so he strolls to the beach to relax. He gets there by morning, has a few drinks, takes a nap, and wakes up in the afternoon, the better part of his first vacation day having drifted by. To his astonishment, the ocean has advanced at least ten yards towards him and waves are splashing around the sides of his lawn chair. Quickly, he sends out a flurry of tweets and wires the news back to Washington, anticipating a headline in the New York Times reading “Global Warming Strikes Myrtle Beach: Ice Caps Gone Forever”. Dusk rapidly approaches as he finishes up the final draft of this Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece. He looks back up to the ocean and sees that the waters have returned—to his renewed amazement—to where they were when he arrived in the morning. To the typical tourist, our pundit just witnessed the daily changes of the tides. But, to the pundit, something historically unprecedented happened—twice in a day no less.

Our frenetic, pampered pundit could have written many of the mainstream analyses of two recent elections in South America. The BBC has gloated that the metaphorical ‘Pink Tide’ that brought left-leaning governments to Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador has been fundamentally altered by Peronist defeats in Argentina coupled with the socialist PSUV’s parliamentary loss in Venezuela.[1] The Wall Street Journal has stated that the Pink Tide is ebbing away.[2] Analysts guided by sober objectivity, however, should not fabricate trends out of a mere two plot points. Without ruling out the possibility that Latin American politics are taking a sharp turn to the right, the notion that the Pink Tide is over is sensationalism at best, and an intentional campaign to dull Latin American and international resistance to the Washington Consensus at worst, neither of which constitutes responsible journalism.

What mainstream reactions fail to grasp is that this political movement advocated for ideas and policies, not necessarily for the careers of the people who gave those ideas a voice. The Pink Tide rejected privatization of state services and liberalized international trade.[3] It pushed back against the neo-liberal agenda that infected Latin American politics from the 1990s onward. It ended the dominance of the Washington Consensus, which held that shrinking government was the panacea to all of the problems of the modern world. Persistent domestic resistance from Latin American leaders and their electorates, termed the Pink Tide, finally overcame the Washington Consensus. This is just a rough description of the Pink Tide’s objectives; books will be written pinning down the specifics. In any event, Mauricio Macri’s victory over Peronist Daniel Scioli for Argentina’s presidency and the MUD alliance’s overwhelming legislative victory over the ruling PSUV in Venezuela do not mean that the Pink Tide has receded. Rather, it means that Argentinian and Venezuelan voters rejected the Pink Tide’s messengers and that the message itself might need fine-tuning.

Moreover, the Pink Tide was not just about altering policies. Politicians elected during the Pink Tide epoch also sought to reframe how the state saw its citizenry, as evidenced by the innovative campaign strategies that its politicians chose to use. When Hugo Chávez ran against opposition leader Manuel Rosales in 2006, the differences in campaign strategies between the two candidates spoke volumes about the goals of the so-called Pink Tide.[4] Rosales saw Venezuelans as nodes in a marketplace, not as people with profound and complex social needs. He saw their votes as products to be purchased, not as the embodiment of a sacred trust in the group of institutions that collectively form the state and are meant to better their lives. Rosales proposed direct access to Venezuelan oil revenues, something that 59 percent of Venezuelans opposed, by distributing personal debit cards to every Venezuelan.[5] His proposal illustrates this warped orientation because revenues are in this view something inherently collective that should, wrongly, be individually distributed.[6] On the other hand, Chávez opposed this form of direct access and favored channeling the oil revenues into education, healthcare, employment opportunities, and various social services.[7] The gulf between the Rosales and Chávez stance on oil revenues can be extrapolated more deeply into a vastly divergent opinion over the proper role for the state. Pink Tide politicians roundly rejected Rosales’s position in favor of Chávez’s; not only out of an economic argument, but also out of a fundamentally social one that values people as something more than workers or consumers.

In Argentina, Macri’s victory has been interpreted as the first major setback for the Pink Tide. On the contrary, it was a rejection of the strand of Peronism that Cristina Fernandez and her late husband Nestor Kirchner popularized during their three successive terms in office (COHA explored the subtle differences between traditional Peronism and Kirchnerism in “Making Peronism Work: Prospects for the Argentinian Run-Off Election”). Admittedly, the populism that Juan Peron himself promoted very much changed between his first and third (and final) terms. Then, and here once again, we cautioned that the Kirchners’ confrontational style and untenable macroeconomic policies had veered far from Juan Peron’s original policy positions, even more drastically than the conservative Argentine President Carlos Menem, and were causing a great deal of skepticism for Cristina Kirchner’s Partido Justicialista (PJ) among its traditional support base. It was apparent that without internal party reforms, there was a good chance that Scioli would lose the election, as was the case eventually. Consequently, Kirchnerist twists on Peronism -such as a penchant for abrasive and ineffective political maneuvering- seem to have temporarily cost electoral support for this particular version of populism. Crucially, this outcome is completely distinct from the mainstream view that the Pink Tide has now ended. Voters believed that this particular version of left wing populism was threatening Argentina’s democratic institutions and republican character through the attempted dominance of one branch of government over the others. Of course, as COHA has observed in previous analyses, Peronism has always had anti-democratic elements. But a combination of increased popular unease at these elements and Cristina Kirchner’s enhancement of their threat to the entire democratic system proved to be electorally damaging for her party.[8]

In Venezuela, the PSUV’s crushing defeat has been similarly misinterpreted as the second, and mortal, blow to the Pink Tide. However, PSUV’s defeat was not really meant as a referendum on their socialist ideology or even on its practical implications. Instead, it was a referendum on President Nicolas Maduro’s popularity and effectiveness, which was certainly influenced by his socialist beliefs, yet not dictated by them. Datanalisis, a well-regarded Venezuelan polling group, stated that Maduro’s approval rating was 24.3 percent in July.[9] That rating had remained roughly constant until the December elections, even dipping slightly to 22 percent.[10] Maduro’s personality has failed to allow him to win over Venezuelans in the same way that the charismatic and fiery Hugo Chávez did. Maduro does not trust those outside of a small inner sanctum and continuously searches for enemies, both personally and for his nation as a whole.[11] Further, his promotion of sycophants to high positions within his cabinet has fed his paranoia, keeping him focused on a futile search for enemies rather than on a genuine search for responses to the immense challenges facing Venezuela, like goods shortages and extraordinarily high inflation.[12]

Victories for right of center candidates in Argentina and Venezuela could mean that the Pink Tide has begun to recede—but that is not the inevitable conclusion that should be drawn from these two elections. Political pundits of every political persuasion need to wait and see what happens in the coming months and even years before such a declaration can be confidently made. Both Argentina and Venezuela had leaders that cost their own political parties support in unique ways. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner led in a way that was widely perceived to be anti-democratic. While she was elected twice in free and fair presidential elections, she had a confrontational and increasingly erratic leadership style, even refusing at the end of her term to attend president-elect Macri’s swearing in ceremony and hang a ceremonial sash upon her political rival.[13] Maduro was unpopular because he failed to address economic issues and then blamed mostly fictitious enemies for Venezuela’s most troubling crises. Yes, there were and continue to be economic incentives for smugglers to sell Venezuelan goods in Colombia, but the economic inefficiency of the Maduro government has exacerbated pre-existing goods shortages.

Because the Pink Tide is ideological, rather than personal, these two leaders’ political defeats, through the former’s inability to coronate a successor and the latter’s inability to maintain control over the legislature, does not equate to an end for the larger phenomenon. Persistent left-of-center losses in more Latin American states, would seem to indicate that electoral losses revolve around a rejection of the Pink Tide’s message. Currently, electoral losses seem to stem from a rejection of the Pink Tide’s messengers. Commentators would do well to keep this distinction in mind.

And, without engaging in speculation, like our imaginary political pundit, even if the past two elections in Argentina and Venezuela were not flukes but the start of a trend that rejects left wing politics, then the Pink Tide is still likely to have long-term effects. First, the Pink Tide has reinforced certain cultural attitudes that will not recede simply because some of its main proponents have left public office. A hemisphere-wide shift has occurred in public opinion towards the United States. This shift has been many years in the making and is informed by grievous policy errors that have been committed in the name of “free-markets” and “democracy”. Rebuilding trust will be a challenge for U.S. policy-makers and will not occur instantaneously even if politicians favored inside Washington were to be elected.

Secondly, the global economic environment has also changed dramatically since the Great Recession making a return to the previous era of neo-liberalism and reliance on Washington unlikely.[14] U.S. economic hegemony in the Latin America continues to ebb away as Brazil’s economy grows—albeit this trend may be delayed by Brazil’s looming recession.[15] Latin American states will continue to seek economic stability and reliable markets internally, since the U.S. has failed to be a source of these intangibles. Consequently, continued Latin American economic, political, and social integration—key aspects of the Pink Tide—will continue to accelerate as inter-regional trade grows. Since the formation in the early 1990s of the regional trade bloc MERCOSUR, exports to fellow Latin American member states reached 14% of the total export share by 2007.[16]

Thirdly, the Pink Tide has allowed left-leaning ideologues to gain influence within bureaucracies, media companies, and judiciaries throughout Latin America. So, it will require consistent electoral defeats before leftist political influence, which allowed the Pink Tide’s policies to occur, would be completely eradicated.

It is doubtful that the Pink Tide’s policy implications will fade away anytime soon. Bolivarian President Evo Morales loses his upcoming referendum in February that would allow him to run for a fourth presidential term. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, ensnared in investigations of the state-owned Petroleo Brasileiro, may well be impeached. Nevertheless, the Pink Tide’s influence seems to be here to stay. The Pink Tide has fundamentally altered the relationship between Latin American governments and their people, and among Latin American states. For the time being, a few elections in which leftist candidates and leftist parties were defeated, in some cases decisively, should not be taken as evidence that this broad and deep political shift is on the cusp of being reversed.

*Robie Mitchell, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[1] Nick Caistor, “Latin America: The ‘Pink Tide’ Turns,” BBC News, 12/11/2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35060390, par. 3

[2] David Luhnow and Juan Forero, “A Populist ‘Pink Tide is Ebbing in South America, Argentine Vote Suggests,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/23/2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-populist-pink-tide-is-ebbing-in-south-america-argentine-vote-suggests-1448326259, par. 1

[3] Sujatha Fernandes, “Pink Tide in Latin America,” Economic and Political Weekly 42: no. 1 (2007), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419099, p. 8

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid, p. 9

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Simon Tisdall, “Venezuela Election Points to a Rejection of Populism, not the Pink Tide,” The Guardian, 12/7/2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/venezuela-election-points-to-a-rejection-of-populism-and-not-the-pink-tide, par. 9

[9] Alexandra Ulmer, “Popularity of Venezuela’s Maduro Inches Down to 24.3 Percent,” Reuters, 8/13/2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-maduro-idUSKCN0QI25Y20150813, par. 1

[10] Aldo Gamboa, “US Keenly, but Discreetly Watches Venezuela Vote,” Yahoo News, 12/6/2015, https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/us-keenly-discreetly-watches-venezuela-vote-211918687.html, par. 6

[11] Eduardo Sanchez, “Maduro- Traits of a Paranoid Personality,” Middlebury Institute: Center for Conflict Studies, 1/13/2014, http://sites.miis.edu/ccsprofilesofworldleaders/2014/01/13/maduro-traits-of-a-paranoid-personality

[12] Ibid

[13] Daniel Cancel and Charlie Devereux, “Argentina Presidential Feud Turns Ceremony into a Farce,” Bloomberg. 12/9/2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-09/argentine-presidential-feud-turns-inauguration-ceremony-to-farce

[14] Jason Tockman, “The Rise of the Pink Tide: Trade, Integration, and Economic Crisis in Latin America,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 10: no. 2 (2009), http://www.jstor.org/stable/43133571, p. 31

[15] Ibid, p. 35

[16] Ibid, p. 33

In a remarkable turnaround in Taiwanese politics, the self-ruled island of 23 million people, Taiwan elected its first female president on 16 January 2016 in a landmark election after eight years under the government of the pro-China Kuomintang (KMT) or Nationalist Party. The leader of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Tsai Ing-wen, won the presidency with 56.1 % of the vote. Unlike other Asian women who took political power, she does not come from a political family. Though she refuses to accept that Taiwan is a part of ‘one China’, she has promised to maintain peaceful and stable relations with Beijing. Her political stance, however, could unsettle relations with China. China lost no time in warning against any ‘independence’ move. China claims the island as its own territory and threatens to use force if it declares formal independence. It may be mentioned that the outgoing Kuomintang President Ma Ying-jeou served eight years and was constitutionally barred from another term.

Eric Chu, the Nationalist Party candidate conceded defeat. It was for the first time the KMT lost control of the island’s legislature. While the DPP took 68 of the 113 seats in Taiwan’s parliament, the DPP could gather only 35. In a post-election news conference, Tsai underscored Taiwan’s commitment to democracy, calling it a value “deeply engrained in the Taiwanese people.” She also acknowledged the tenuous relationship with Beijing, saying both sides “have a responsibility to do their utmost to find mutually acceptable ways to interact … and ensure no provocation and no surprises.”

Tsai’s political journey started in 2012, when she made her first presidential bid. She lost to Ma and her party suffered a crushing defeat in the legislative polls. With few seats, her party could not even be an effective opposition to Ma’s party, which has ruled Taiwan since 1945 except for an eight-year period of the DPP rule between 2000 and 2008. This time, Tsai was a clear front runner and her victory was not a surprise. Despite its 2012 defeat in presidential and legislative elections, the DPP had made significant gains under Tsai’s leadership, culminating to the office of President.

Her relative inexperience in politics vis-à-vis veterans could be seen as a liability but the same could be strength as well as it frees her from the factional baggage of party heavyweights. In a male-dominated world of East Asian politics, Tsai’s victory as a woman President injects a new dynamism to the political discourse in Taiwan. Like Park Geun-hye in South Korea, Tsai is also single and has all the time to devote to the country’s politics. Her defeat in the 2012 presidential poll made her mature to navigate in present day politics as she reflected for four years on what went wrong then so that course correction could be made this time. Her immediate challenges are to address the country’s stagnating economy, aging population and long-needed constitutional reform. The newly election legislature will convene in February 2016, while Tsai’s inauguration is scheduled for May.

New Challenges for China

The election took place amid concerns that the island’s economy was under threat from China and broad opposition to Beijing’s demands for political unification. Tsai’s election to the presidency poses new challenge to Beijing as Tsai has always been wary of China and its intentions. Before the election, there was growing public resistance to Beijing following the outgoing President Ma’s China-friendly policy. The opposition then felt that Taiwan’s sovereignty was being eroded by such pro-China policy of the KMT. Tsai is likely to have the support and cooperation of the smaller New Power Party (NPP) with five seats, which grew out of the protests, called the Sunflower Movement, though the NPP is unlikely to abandon its principles. Tsai is also assured of support from Hong Kong, where student leaders of the pro-democracy Umbrella Movement have pledged closer ties with Taiwan. Both Taiwan and Hong Kong face similar dilemma – Taiwan on the sovereignty issue and Hong Kong on its future – and the China factor remains relevant to both. Since its return to China by Britain in 1997, Hong Kong’s status has been semi-autonomous. The peoples of Hong Kong enjoy freedoms unseen on the mainland and because of Beijing’s policy, the people of Hong Kong fear that those freedoms might be lost and therefore see common ground with the people of Taiwan.

Though Tsai pledged to maintain the “status quo of peace and stability” in relations with China, she said both sides have a responsibility to find a mutually acceptable means of interacting. She also added that Taiwan’s international space must be respected. Tsai is known to have refused to endorse the principle that Taiwan and China are parts of a single nation to be unified eventually. Beijing has made that its baseline for continuing negotiations that have produced a series of pacts on trade, transport and exchanges. What could be China’s immediate options? The most likely option for China could be to avoid any provocations and adopt a wait-and-see approach, while at the same time likely to use diplomatic and economy pressure if Tsai is seen as straying too far from its unification agenda. Taiwan was a Japanese colony from 1885 to 1945 and split again from China amid civil war in 1949.

The South China Sea issue does not go away from the political radars of many Asian counties. Nearly a dozen countries have contending claims to some areas of the disputed mineral rich area to which China makes claim to the whole of it. The issue of freedom of navigation in the disputed area is too vexing. Like other claimant countries, Tsai wants for a peaceful resolution of the dispute. In the disputed South China Sea, China has built artificial islands that extend its reach. Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines have competing claims in the sea, through which $5 trillion of trade passes annually. Tsai is vocal in articulating her views on this, saying that provocations and pressure from China would destabilise relations. Such a stance annoys Beijing. Tsai has a lot of experience dealing with China issues and people in Taiwan hope that she will be able to manage the relationship in a way that China will react not negatively.

Ties with Japan

What does Tsai’s victory mean to Japan in the context of Japan-Taiwan relations? Tsai committed to continue strengthening the island’s ties with Japan. Like Japan’s ties with South Korea and China, its ties with Taiwan are also not free from historical baggage as Taiwan was a colony of Japan for 60 years. Seen from that perspective, Japan’s relationship with Taipei is too complex. Japan-South Korea relations thawed somewhat following agreement early in January 2016 on the ‘comfort women’ issue, though scars do remain and difficult to erase because of its emotive nature. As regards relations between Japan and Taiwan, both have largely been able to transcend them and focus more on a stable strategic partnership, buttressed by trade and common values such as democracy and the rule of law.

Indeed, mutually beneficial economic ties remain the core of the Japan-Taiwan relationship. Taiwan is Japan’s fifth largest trading partner, while Japan is Taiwan’s second biggest partner after China. Japan is also engaged in free trade discussions with Taiwan, through the Japan-Taiwan Economic Partnership Committee. In view of the complex geopolitical considerations, Japan adheres to the so-called one-China policy but the same is unlikely to inhibit a traditional free trade agreement if both sides pursue formal negotiations. Japan is already the fourth-largest foreign investor in Taiwan, besides the largest source of foreign investment projects in the country. At the ground level, people-to-people ties remain strong with nearly 4.5 million visitors travelling between the two countries annually and this is a welcome sign.

Both have problems on the issue of ownership of the East China Sea, which the Japanese call Senkaku Islands and Chinese/Taiwanese call as Diaoyutai. Japan, Taiwan and China claim the islands as their own. The islands remain as an area of friction between Japan and Taiwan as it revives harmful memories of Japan’s occupation of Taiwan from 1895 to 1945. However, changing geostrategic situation in the region has propelled both to realise that solutions ought to be found to manage tensions based on cost-benefit analysis. With a view to do so, both have persevered to minimise tensions. For example, both reached a fishery arrangement in 2013 demarcating special exemption and special cooperation zones in the East China Sea. The agreement allows both Japan and Taiwan to fish cooperatively in a specified area without the fear of enforcement actions from their respective coast guards. Expectedly, China slammed this arrangement between Japan and Taiwan. From a strategic point of view, it was a victory for Japan as it was successful to wean away Taiwan to its fold on an issue where Taiwan found common ground with China. This would surely embolden Tsai to pursue her China policy.

Tsai’s Japan strategy seems to be clear and it is not difficult to speculate on the future of Japan-Taiwan ties with Tsai at the helm. Bilateral ties are likely to receive a boost. In October 2015, Tsai visited Japan as Taiwan’s official opposition leader. Earlier in July the same year, former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-Hui’s had visited Japan, during which he addressed the Diet and indicated his nostalgia for the Japanese colonial period in Taiwan. That time, Lee voiced his belief that the Senkaku Islands likely belonged to Japan. Tsai is expected to adopt a more diplomatic approach to cross-Strait relations, though she is expected to face significant pressure from her supporters in the DPP who advocate a more hard-line approach to Taiwanese independence. The likely future of Taiwan-China relations during Tsai regime shall have an important impact on Japan. On its side, Tokyo will welcome if Tsai’s policies towards China is premised on a tougher policies towards Beijing. At the same time, the re-emergence of DPP in Taiwan’s political horizon shall encourage Japan to engage with Taiwan more vigorously so that the strategic ties are further strengthened, especially in soft security areas, such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Foreign minister Fumio Kishida welcomed Isai’s victory and hoped to strengthen Japan’s relations with Taipei under her leadership. Indeed, forging closer ties with Taiwan is viewed as increasingly important to Japan amid the rise of an assertive China in the East and South China seas. Prime Minister Abe Shinzo also places importance on Japan’s relations with Taiwan, and had held talks with Tsai in Taiwan in 2011 before he returned to power in 2012.

Impact on India

Besides the geopolitical implications of Isai’s election victory, what does it mean for India? The DPP was disenchanted with the predecessor government’s pro-China policy which did not help improve Taiwanese economy. The government of Isai is likely to choose a policy of greater engagement with other Asian nations. If Tsai prefers to revive Taiwan’s Go South policy it will complement India’s Act East push. In recent times many Taiwanese companies such as Foxxonn and Wistron Corp have committed to increase their investments in India. Taiwan’s strength lies in the manufacturing and managing global supply chains. Taiwan’s participation in India’s developmental goals will boost its Make in India initiative.

At a time when Chinese economy also started slowing down and Chinese labour has become expensive, Taiwanese companies have lost the competitive edge in the Chinese market. India could emerge as the best alternative choice for Taiwanese companies, who might prefer to shift their production bases to India. Deeper engagement would also facilitate greater institutional cooperation. It would be to India’s interest to respond to the new leadership’s choice for a robust approach to the outside world and leverage this for mutual gains.

Assessment

Tsai has pledged a stronger Taiwan that is proud of its identity. Tsai’s elevation to the presidency is seen as a political earthquake as relations with Beijing is likely to be strained as Tsai would seek greater autonomy and independence for Taiwanese people, a departure from the predecessor government. Though Beijing is not expected to react more quickly, it has warned already the victorious party not to try for independence. Greater trouble in the future could not be ruled out. Chinese President Xi Jinping known for his assertive stances on regional and global issues has so far refrained from being too assertive with Taiwan. That might change now but China’s strategy would depend upon what actions Tsai prefers to choose and how its main ally, the US, reacts. Beijing might stick to its warning that it would resolutely oppose any bid by Taiwan to seek independence. Tsai’s main political play card that Taiwan is a self-ruling democracy is unlikely to be altered. Though Taiwan has never formally declared independence since splitting with China in 1949 after a civil war, Tsai is unlikely to accept that Beijing sees it as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.

Tsai is aware of the consequences of unnecessarily provoking Beijing and is expected not to push through the traditional stance of her party for independence. It was therefore even after her massive victory, she promised to maintain the “status quo”, a message that would please its ally, the US, which would not like tension breaking out in another area of Northeast Asia. The threat of North Korea is already troubling the US, as also Japan, South Korea and China and Washington would feel uncomfortable if tensions flare up in the Taiwan sector. President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia policy would also come again under strain. On her part, Tsai would expect that Beijing refrains from coercive threats or efforts to tighten the noose on Taiwan diplomatically.

Taiwan has reason to worry about its status in the world. Its position on the global stage has been diminished under the shadow of China’s growing influence. Officially, Taiwan is recognised by only 22 countries. Even its most important ally, the US has unofficial ties after establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979. Therefore, for Isai, to restore Taiwan’s international space is a priority. This fundamental change in Isai’s foreign policy strategy could be the main reason for possible strain in ties with Beijing during her tenure in office. However, no immediate backlash from Beijing is likely; it cannot just afford such a course in policy, though it would monitor Isai’s every move. In an editorial, China’s Global Times warned that “Tsai can lead DPP out of the hallucinations of Taiwan independence, and contribute to the peaceful and common development between Taiwan and the mainland”. At the moment it is difficult to speculate how Taiwan-China relations would develop with Isai at the helm but it would be premature to expect any alarm bells to ring.

Israel’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, due to begin serving a jail term in February for corruption, struck a deal Monday with the prosecution to avoid a second term, AFP reported

Israeli public radio said that Olmert’s lawyer reached the agreement with the chief prosecutor who has accused Olmert of obstruction of justice.

Olmert had tried to persuade his former secretary Shula Zacken not to testify against him and offered her money in exchange for her silence. Zacken secretly recorded Olmert’s attempted bribery.

The prosecutor agreed Monday to allow Olmert to serve six months for obstruction of justice concurrently with his 18-month sentence for corruption.

Olmert is due to appear before the Supreme Court again on Tuesday for a separate case.

His prison term – the first time an Israeli prime minister has gone to jail – begins Feb. 15.

Original article

US Defense Secretary Ash Carter joined Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery today before welcoming the prime minister to the Pentagon for a discussion on defense cooperation between the United States and Australia.

In a statement provided by Peter Cook, Pentagon press secretary, Carter and Turnbull discussed recent developments in Iraq and Syria, and the need to continue close collaboration on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region.
Carter expressed appreciation for Australia’s contributions to the counter-ISIL coalition, as well as Australia’s continued support in Afghanistan.

Carter said he looks forward to Australia’s participation in the counter-ISIL coalition meeting Jan. 20, in Paris.

The Russian ruble has dropped to a new low, battered by weak oil prices, the Associated Press reports.

The national currency was down 1.7 percent at 78.9 rubles to the dollar in late afternoon trading Monday, Jan 18, in Moscow, its lowest mid-trading level since December 2014.

Oil prices that the Russian economy relies on have recently plummeted to under $30 a barrel, a 13-year low. The ruble is also under pressure from economic sanctions that the West imposed on Russia for its involvement in the Ukraine crisis.

Russia is running a budget deficit of 3 percent of GDP this year, and the government is looking to give a 10 percent trim to expenses in the federal budget which was drafted with oil prices of $50 a barrel in mind.

By Ajit Kumar Singh*

In a nationally televised Pongal (Tamil Harvest Festival) ceremony, on January 15, 2016, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said his Government was ready to devolve power to minority Tamils under a new Constitution. “We are ready to devolve power (to minority Tamils) and protect democracy. The Constitutional Assembly will discuss with all, including (Tamil-dominated) provincial councils to have a new Constitution. We will do that in a transparent manner,” he said, adding that more civilian lands would soon be freed from military control and that the official language policy will be implemented where Sinhala and Tamil would be accorded the official language status. He also vowed to bring to justice all perpetrators of war crimes committed towards the end of the country’s civil war in 2009.

Earlier, on January 9, 2016, the Sri Lankan Parliament began a process to formulate a new Constitution with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe presenting a resolution to set up a Constitutional Assembly (CA) of all members for the purpose: “We will have the whole Parliament formulating the Constitution unlike the previous instances when the Constitutions were drafted outside Parliament.” The new Constitution will replace the Constitution adopted in 1978.

Similarly, President Maithripala Sirisena declared, in his address, that the time had come to formulate a new Constitution in keeping with the demands of the 21st Century, but also warned that extremist elements both in the south and the north may try to scuttle the process.

In another development, which is expected to have a far reaching impact on the reconciliation process, President Sirisena promised, on January 3, 2016, to provide land to settle internally displaced persons (IDPs): “It is an ambitious target, but I will see that all the internally displaced people are given land to build homes… For many people the main issue was lack of land and that is something we will resolve in the next six months.” He added that he would travel to Jaffna this month to formally hand over about 700 acres of land as part of the plan. Most of the resettled families are still staying in welfare camps and want to be resettled in their original places of dwelling.

These developments are in continuation with what was witnessed through 2015. The ‘year of renewed hope’, as 2015 was described, commenced with a dramatic turnaround of political fortunes in the island nation. Pallewatte Gamaralalage Maithripala Yapa Sirisena, leader of the New Democratic Front (NDF), emerged victorious in a keenly contested Presidential Election held on January 8, 2015. Sirisena secured 6,217,162 votes (51.28 per cent) against 5,768,090 votes (47.58 per cent) polled by Mahinda Rajapaksa, the incumbent President and candidate of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). Sirisena took oath as the Seventh Elected Executive President of the country on January 9. The NDF is a conglomeration of several political formations opposing the UPFA, including the main opposition United National Party (UNP). UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe became the new Prime Minister, replacing D.M. Jayaratne.

Later, in the Parliamentary Elections held on August 17, 2015, voters gave a fractured mandate, with none of the parties securing a simple majority. UNP, led by incumbent PM Wickremesinghe, secured 106 seats, falling seven short of simple majority in a 225-memebr House; the SLFP secured just 95 seats. The main Tamil political party, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) won 16 seats; and the main Marxist party, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP, People’s Liberation Front) won six.

However, following a historic agreement on August 20, 2015, between UNP and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the incumbent PM Wickremesinghe on August 21, 2015, took oath as the 26th Prime Minister of the island nation. Wickremesinghe was sworn in as Prime Minister for the fourth time [having served earlier tenures between May 17, 1993, and August 19, 1994; December 9, 2001, and April 2, 2004; and January 9, 2015, and August 20, 2015]. Later in the day, the MoU was signed by the two parties.

UNP and SLFP are the two major political forces in Sri Lanka, with a long history of bitter rivalry, and who engaged fiercely in the Parliamentary Elections on August 17, 2015. However, they reached a compromise as equations within the SLFP had changed dramatically. The party has virtually split into two factions – one led by Sirisena and the other led by Mahinda Rajapaksa. It was during the January 2015 Presidential Elections that Sirisena revolted against his political master, then incumbent President Rajapaksa, who was also the head of SLFP. Though Sirisena was expelled from the party, he contested a successful election against Rajapaksa as a ‘common candidate’ for NDF. Subsequent to his loss, Rajapaksa resigned as the head of SLFP and was succeeded by Sirisena. The latter, however, failed to establish full authority over the party. This became apparent when Rajapaksa successfully contested the Parliamentary Elections as the ‘Prime Ministerial candidate’ of the SLFP, despite Sirisena’s direct opposition. Though reports indicated that most of SLFP’s new Members of Parliament (MPs) were Rajapaksa supporters, the split verdict had put them in a quandary and forced them to seek a compromise.

Though Rajapaksa had faced mounting criticism for exercising unbridled power, the country had seen all-round development during his tenure, more so after the restoration of peace following Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)’s defeat. This included dramatic progress in the Northern Province, the epicentre of war, where, according to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the highest rate of economic growth was recorded, with Provincial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 27.8 per cent, as against a national average of 8.3 per cent in 2011; and 25.9 percent in 2012, as against a national average of 6.4 per cent. His failure was in his inability to address the issue of national reconciliation, despite sustained rhetoric on the subject.

Rajapaksa’s immediate response to the outcome of the Parliamentary elections of 2010 had been encouraging: “The assured majority in Parliament given by the voters encourages the Government to proceed with its policies for the strengthening of peace and reconciliation, reconstruction, greater infrastructure development, increased investment in identified areas of growth, and the overall development of the country to make it the centre of economic and social progress in South Asia.” His Government had also successfully rehabilitated most of the former LTTE cadres, with only 49 hardcore LTTE cadres out of 11,800, remaining in detention centres; and resettled all most all the 263,221 IDPs. Nevertheless, his talks on reconciliation, particularly with the main Tamil party, the TNA, were always marred by suspicion, and had remained stalled since January 27, 2012.

Although the talks between the TNA and the new Government are yet to begin, TNA spokesman M. A. Sumanthiran had stated on September 4, 2015, “We will talk to the Government straightaway with a view to resolving the long outstanding matter,” adding that the Tamil people were happy with the appointment of TNA leader R. Sampanthan as the Opposition Leader of Parliament. TNA was recognized as the Main Opposition and its leader Sampanthan was designated as Opposition Leader on September 3, 2015. Prior to this, Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) leader A. Amirthalingam was the only Tamil politician who had served as Opposition Leader (from 1977 to 1983). Sampanthan was also an MP of the main opposition at that time.

Also welcoming Colombo’s decision to co-sponsor a draft resolution (A/HRC/30/L.29) that was tabled at the 30th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, the TNA in a statement on September 25, 2015, declared, “We are of the view that the draft provides a constructive starting point for what will inevitably be a long road to reconciliation.”

Indeed, in a significant shift in policy, on September 24, 2015, Colombo had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’, based on the findings of the OISL [OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) Investigation on Sri Lanka]. The draft resolution had mentioned “the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorized prosecutors and investigators”.

Buckling under domestic pressure, however, Colombo backtracked later, as PM Wickremesinghe on September 27, 2015, declared that Sri Lanka’s domestic mechanism to probe the alleged rights abuses during the military conflict with the LTTE cannot have foreign judges due to constitutional impediments, and that his Government could “only act within the framework of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which does not allow foreign judges to operate in the country.” He added, however, “Sri Lanka will seek the consultations of foreign judges and lawyers for the domestic mechanism to probe the alleged rights violations…”

Though Colombo was forced to backtrack from its original position, even conceding to consultation with “foreign judges and lawyers for the domestic mechanism” demonstrated its resolve to placate the Tamils. The Tamils recognize the Government’s compulsions – in case Rajapaksa, who will be at receiving end if foreign judges join investigations, chooses to create political instability in an effort to secure control of the Government after a hiatus. Significantly, the previous Rajapaksa regime had vehemently opposed a strident campaign by the international community, particularly western nations, to interfere in the country’s internal affairs in the guise of ‘investigation of war crimes’ through the adoption of such resolutions.

The peace attained after a bloody endgame that terminated in the comprehensive defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, has been sustained through 2015. Sri Lanka did not record a single incident of killing in 2015, a trend evident since November 2009, barring a lone of incident reported in 2014, when on April 11, a Security Forces (SFs) team had launched a cordon and search operation in the forest area off Padaviya in Anuradhapura District. The unit was fired upon by militants hiding in the forest. SFs killed three armed local LTTE leaders, reportedly in retaliatory fire.

Developments through 2015 and early 2016 suggest greater stabilization and reinforce prospects for an enduring peace in Sri Lanka. Challenges remain, of course, and international pressures have been distorting processes of reconciliation for some time now. The drafting of a new Constitution offers both a challenge and an opportunity to address the grievances of a long, twisted and violent history.

* Ajit Kumar Singh
Research Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management