By Saeed Alikhani*

Italy and France were destinations for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s first official trips following the removal of sanctions that had been imposed on Iran over its peaceful nuclear program. During these trips, Rouhani was accompanied with a 200-member delegation, which consisted of officials at the highest political and economic levels, which clearly indicated president’s approach to boosting economic relations with those countries and attracting foreign investment to Iran.

A glance at the agreements reached during these two trips will prove that major European companies are now ready to return to the Iranian market. France’s Peugeot is planning to invest 400 million euros in Iran while Citroen has also agreed to produce 200,000 cars in Iran in cooperation with the country’s biggest carmaker, Iran Khodro. According to experts, the contract is worth USD 436 million.

Meanwhile, the French oil major, Total, has announced that it will purchase 200,000 barrels per day of oil from Iran. At the same time, Airbus has announced its readiness to renovate Iran’s air fleet by selling 118 commercial jets, including three humongous Airbus A-380 passenger plane to the Islamic Republic.

The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has announced that the two countries will sign agreements for further cooperation in such sectors as health, agriculture, and environment. In addition, Aéroports de Paris and Bouygues industrial group will take part in the construction of a new passenger terminal at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International airport while Vinci SA has signed an agreement to manage and renovate airports in the Iranian cities of Mashhad and Isfahan.

Meanwhile, CMA CGM, France’s container shipping company, has reached an agreement with Iran for cooperation in shipping and development of port terminals in the Islamic Republic. Suez Environnement SA, which as its name denotes is active in the field of environment, has signed an agreement for water treatment in Iran, while France’s Sanofi has also signed a contract to sell medical products to Iran.

Iranian delegates also signed remarkable agreements with Italian sides during Rouhani’s visit to Rome. The two countries have signed 14 official documents to boost cooperation in such fields as road transportation, railroad, medical and education cooperation, commerce, safety, port cooperation, agriculture, quarantine and preservation of plants, and pharmaceuticals.

What has been mentioned as economic achievements of these trips is a set of agreements, which will greatly help boost various sectors of the country’s economy and in doing so, can make up for the past stagnation, which was a result of sanctions against Iran and had prevented prosperity and growth of these sectors.

Of course, this situation is not special to Iran and European sides will soon know about the advantages of close economic cooperation with Iran. Under these conditions, talking about the past and breach of promises by some countries is only an effort to create obstacles on the way of entrepreneurship or flow of millions of euros of foreign investment, and will only cast doubts on the Iranian administration’s approach to develop foreign cooperation. However, the point that must not be forgotten is that although diplomacy learns lessons from the past, it sets it eyes on the future.

Whether we like it or not, we must accept the reality that Iran’s achievements as well as rising soft and hard power of Iran in the region have faced our country with more difficult and more complicated equations, and regional actors involved in this new situation have defined a large part of development of their regional power through establishment of economic relations with big economies in the world.

Signing economic contracts by major European countries with Iran is not a measure to be merely assessed as an economic step and, there is no doubt that the policy of economic closeness with Iran will be extended to other areas such as politics and so forth.

The post-sanctions Europe is now offered with the opportunity to judge the issue of relations with Iran through its large-scale economic measures and by comparing the situation under “sanctions” with the “economic cooperation.” Therefore, if this judgment is seasoned with smartness, Europe can even think about more extended relations with Iran as well.

*Saeed Alikhani, International Analyst

Source: Iran Newspaper
http://iran-newspaper.com/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org

It should seem axiomatic to Congressional credibility that the people’s representatives should have hearings about the Republic’s affairs in the open. If they are put there by citizens to represent citizens, the all seeing eye of the sovereign public should be present to oversee their performance.

Not so, it seems, regarding certain areas of policy deliberation. On the subject of gathering intelligence, the shroud of secrecy comes down heavily, ensuring that deliberations are away from public scrutiny and critique.

This issue is of particular interest given the hearings the House Judiciary Committee will hold next week on two of the NSA’s programs that featured in the range of disclosures by Edward Snowden in June 2013. Their names have been assimilated into the argot of popular discussion: Upstream, and in particular, PRISM.

Keeping such hearings secret has angered a range of institutes and organisations who wish to keep an eye on how discussions will unfold. These are critical, given that s. 702, in its legal force, lapses next year. Will this provision be allowed to disappear into oblivion?

On Wednesday, the 26 organisations, including the heavy hitting American Civil Liberties Union and the persistently present Human Rights Watch, waded in with an angry note to Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers.

The undersigned groups were initially appreciative about the decision to hold hearings on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, believing “that robust congressional oversight of the implementation of this statute, which is used to acquire the communications of Americans and people around the world alike without a warrant, is critical.”1 Surprise, however, was expressed at holding the hearing “in a classified format, outside the public view.”

Holding such a hearing in secret “neither fully satisfies the promise to hold hearings nor permits the public debate that this nation deserves. Rather, it continues the excessive secrecy that has contributed to the surveillance abuses we have seen in recent years and to their adverse effects upon our civil liberties and economic growth.”

Hearings on FISA – notably the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 – have been held in open session on no less than six occasions since its creation. Implementing the statute has been a point of open discussion, with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board publishing an unclassified report on the subject. Not even that has prevented the slide into an ever intrusive, and unaccountable state of surveillance.

Section 702 remains one of the most troubling sections in the intelligence armoury, largely because it is used as the legitimising basis for such programs as PRISM. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence insists on a rather bland reading of the provision, suggesting that it facilitates “the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-US persons located outside the United States, creating a new, more streamlined procedure to collect the communications of foreign terrorists.”2

Such a reading seems discriminating and strategic, picking targets accurately. Targeting cannot take place without an appropriate, documented, foreign intelligence purpose, and the foreign target must reasonably be believed to be outside the United States. The provision supposedly does not apply to US citizens.

In practice, it has given the NSA an elastic reach, prompted as much by laziness as executive greed for identifying a whole spectrum of potential threats. It has also been helped by a compliant FISA Court reluctant to interfere with the wisdom of such collecting, and the nature of technology that makes distinctions between US and non-US citizens redundant.

The court’s role is also limited to approving various “targeting” procedures and “minimization” procedures – collection in principle does not require individual judicial orders.3 Even with these lax provisions, the court has periodically noted the problems of accidental capture of data, something which bypasses judicial scrutiny to enable searching by NSA operatives.

A glance at what the programs actually do should serve to dispel any notions about proportionality and discrimination. Technology, in this specific sense, makes a mockery of sober legal limits. Section 702 is a hoovering provision, gathering up millions of online messages and voice communications across a range of platforms, including Skype and Facebook. PRISM gathers its trove from the technology giants: Yahoo, Apple and Google, while Upstream “siphons it off from major internet cables owned by the big telecom companies.”4

As Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., noted in a statement to The Intercept, “Reports indicate that FISA Section 702 authority has been used by the NSA to search Americans’ photographs, emails, and other communications without warrant or probable cause.”5

The principle outlined in the collectively signed letter – that congressional hearings “should be conducted in accordance with this country’s highest principles of transparency and openness” is sound enough. But the practice of the republic has followed different rationales and principles, deliberating about the effects of s. 702 without actually altering it dramatically. Transparent governance has become the rhetoric of false practice, and NSA programs such as PRISM and Upstream its scolding and repudiating children.

Notes:
1 http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/Letter%20for%20the%20Judiciary%20Committee%20on%20Section%20702%20Hearing.pdf

2 http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/topics/section-702

3 http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/topics/section-702

4 https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/congressional-hearings-on-surveillance-programs-to-kick-off-in-secret/

5 https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/congressional-hearings-on-surveillance-programs-to-kick-off-in-secret/

Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam recently warned of “social distancing” as a threat to Singapore’s multi-religious and multi-cultural harmony. Social distancing is in fact evidence of religious fundamentalism, which in tandem with other drivers, could potentially produce extremist violence downstream.

By Kumar Ramakrishna*

In a wide-ranging policy speech on 19 January 2016 Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam identified four inter-connected challenges to Singapore’s multi-religious and multi-cultural harmony: direct terrorist attacks; radicalisation of a part of the Muslim population; the Muslim population growing “somewhat distant” from the rest of the society; and Islamophobia among the non-Muslim communities. Much analytical ink has been spilled in recent months over the direct physical threat posed to Singapore by the likes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its Southeast Asian affiliates, exemplified by the recent attacks in Jakarta; and the sharpening concern over young Singaporean Muslims being radicalised via exposure to slick ISIS ideological narratives online.

Where Mr. Shanmugam arguably broke new ground was his candid analysis of the remaining two worrying trends: the apparent social distancing of some Muslims from the wider community and anti-Muslim prejudice fanned by 15 years of the ongoing war against violent Islamist extremism. The notion of “social distancing” in particular deserves further unpacking.

Social Distancing and Religious Fundamentalism

Mr. Shanmugam noted that “Singaporeans as a whole are becoming more religious” and that “[i]nfluences from the Middle East have had an impact on our Muslim population as well”. He added that some “younger Muslims feel that we should not wish Christians Merry Christmas or Hindus Happy Deepavali”, while apparently some “groups preach that it is wrong for Muslims to recite the National Pledge, sing the National Anthem and serve National Service”, as engaging in these actions “would contradict the Muslim faith”.

The point is this: not just Muslims but Singaporeans in general have been deeply impacted by the ongoing collision between cultural globalisation and one powerful countervailing force worldwide: religious fundamentalism.

As what Thomas Friedman called the Three Democratisations of information, finance and technology deepen and intensify linkages between societies everywhere, traditional societies have not stood still. Fearing the erosion of long-held cultural values and religious mores, some religious communities within and outside the West have responded to the synchronising effects of globalisation into a generally Western social, economic, political and cultural model by developing a defensive variant of religion: fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalism is related to but not quite religion per se. While mainstream religion emphasises universal harmony, fundamentalism emphasises policing of inter-religious boundaries to prevent “contamination” by contact with outsiders. Moreover, fundamentalism insists on a literalist, inflexible adherence to scriptural rules regardless of contextual factors. No surprise then that while devout but mainstream believers are largely able to function optimally within globalised, multicultural societies, religious fundamentalists encounter emotional dissonance.

They tend to feel out of place, retreating into insulated religious enclaves for fear of “polluting” themselves by mingling too closely with other religious and cultural communities. Conversely, fundamentalists may adopt a more assertive stance, forming pressure groups and political parties to secure the power to transform the entire societal structure into a form they would feel more “comfortable” with.

Fundamentalism’s “Violent Potentials”

Such fundamentalist tendencies – whether displayed by Muslims or for that matter Christians, Buddhists and others – if left unchecked could become an even bigger problem downstream. Scholars of religious conflict have long cautioned that there are “violent potentials” within the “fundamentalist mindset” that – when twinned with extremist ideologies fuelled by inclement socioeconomic and political factors – may well be consummated.

To be clear, one is not suggesting that all religious fundamentalists are violent or that the problem is Islamic fundamentalism per se. Buddhist fundamentalists in Myanmar have long incubated a climate of intolerance that arguably contributed to anti-Rohingya Muslim violence in recent times.

Thus social distancing produced by intensifying religious fundamentalism in Singapore and in the region is hardly harmless. Over time they will only entrench the fundamentalist mindset – “obsessed with the differences” with other faiths rather than the “many common things we have together”, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean recently put it – and which in certain conditions may further transmogrify into a violent extremist outlook. This is no exaggeration.

In Indonesia, the Jemaah Islamiyah militant network emerged from a Middle Eastern-oriented fundamentalist tradition that – abjuring prevailing tolerant faith-forms that were both authentically Islamic and Javanese – promoted instead a starkly reductionist interpretation of Islam. Significantly, JI founders had urged their socially insulated followings to reject the national ideology of Pancasila and avoid flying the Indonesian flag. The bombings of Bali in October 2002 were one ensuing bitter fruit – to reiterate, in tandem with other enabling drivers – of such a stark us-versus-them outlook.

Need for Intra-Faith Dialogue and Non-Muslim Support

Mr. Shanmugam assured his audience that while the government will introduce new measures this year to “tackle acts” that “denigrate other races or religions, preach intolerance, or sow religious discord”, it “will not interfere with doctrinal matters within each religion”. Nevertheless, “doctrinal matters” pertaining to fundamentalist religion require attention, as they remain a challenge to Singapore’s social harmony. Hence as some local Muslim scholars argue, intensified intra-faith dialogue to complement inter-faith initiatives are probably in order.

Rigid fundamentalist constructions of the faith that are often purveyed by some foreign clerics are hardly suited to the pressing needs of an utterly ventilated polyglot society like Singapore’s. These need to be identified and delegitimised. Instead, theologically authentic initiatives honestly contextualising sacred obligations to local realities, like the Singapore Muslim Identity project first mooted in 2005, deserve further exploration.

Finally, non-Muslim Singaporean communities, as Mr Shanmugam pointed out, must stamp out Islamophobic tendencies, mindlessly tarring all Muslims with the same ISIS-stained brush. Right-thinking Muslims loathe ISIS and what it is doing to the image of Islam. Thus scribbling “Islam murderers” at a Bukit Panjang bus stop and on a toilet seat in Jurong Point mall – as Mr Shanmugam recounted – only weakens social cohesion and strengthens the hand of ISIS. If non-Muslim Singaporeans could collectively support their Muslim brethren as they navigate delicate internal matters of deeply held belief, the downstream benefits – for both social cohesion and the ongoing struggle against ISIS extremism – are likely to be profound.

*Kumar Ramakrishna is Associate Professor and Head of Policy Studies in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Amb. Bhaswati Mukherjee*

As a young Director in United Nations Division of India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in 1990, when the world was not networked as it is today, I have vivid recollections of following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait along with my colleagues in our office in Akbar Bhavan, New Delhi on a short-wave radio which carried the BBC hourly bulletins. At lunch time, colleagues from the then Gulf Division would update us on the meticulous arrangements and organisation that MEA had mounted under the leadership of the then External Affairs Minister I.K. Gujral, who later became Prime Minister, to evacuate over 100,000 Indians stranded in Kuwait.

After the UN Security Council announced sanctions against the Saddam regime their situation became desperate since their only possible escape route was across the desert to Jordan. It was one of the most complex rescue operations in the annals of recent history.

When I went to see the recently released Bolllywood film “Airlift”, I anticipated that the film would provide belated and welcome recognition to the efforts of our colleagues in MEA, who along with our ambassadors in Kuwait and Jordan and their diplomatic and other staff worked tirelessly for the final happy conclusion of bringing our Indian diaspora in Kuwait safely home. It would, I hoped, also chronicle the efforts of our heroic Air India pilots who willingly flew countless flights through a war zone to bring their compatriots back to Mumbai. The encouragement and leadership provided by the then External Affairs Minister, Gujral, also required to be highlighted.

“Airlift” is a well produced film with great acting by Akshay Kumar and others. It also arouses our patriotic feelings with our beautiful flag and national anthem preceding the screening. The problem arises because, despite the notification that the film is purely fictitious, the reality is that it distorts recent history and reduces facts to fantasy. This will mislead millions of Indians who were born after 1990. The film portrays Gujral in a most unflattering manner, completely divorced from reality. It ridicules an entire Ministry of External Affairs, the Indian envoys at the time serving in Kuwait, Iraq and Jordan and their colleagues except for one fictitious Joint Secretary, portrayed sitting in a large hall drinking tea and taking a call from desperate Indians in Kuwait because others refused to do so during their lunch break.

Fantasy is to portray Akshay Kumar like Moses leading the Jews in the famous exodus across the desert to the Promised Land. Reality is that a convoy of 100,000 people could not cross 1000 kms of a harsh desert without stopping, eating and refuelling. Reality is that there were actually 110,000 Indians at that time in Kuwait to be evacuated and this evacuation continued for several weeks. Reality is that the evacuation was organised by MEA, through frantic efforts made behind the scenes to obtain Saddam’s agreement for the safety of our Indians and their safe return to India. This reality became complicated no doubt due to the infamous embrace of Gujral by Saddam but it is often forgotten that it is our then EAM and MEA whose forceful interventions also ensured the safety of our air hostesses who had been stranded after the invasion.

“Airlift” also hits out at Air India, depicting its pilots as uncaring and unpatriotic, with some pilots stating in the film that they would not fly in a war zone since they were not Indian Air Force pilots. The film shows the fictitious Joint Secretary pleading helplessly with Air India pilots while taking calls from Ranjit Katyal (Akshay Kumar). This is a travesty of the truth and should be strongly contested by Air India.

MEA’s official Spokesperson, Vikas Swarup, on Twitter recently noted inter alia that : “This is a film and films often take liberties with actual events, facts. This particular film has also taken artistic liberties in the depiction of the events as it actually happened in Kuwait in 1990.” He added that those who remember the 1990 evacuation would also know the “very proactive” role that the MEA played. Official delegations were sent to Baghdad and Kuwait City. The entire operation was coordinated along with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Air India and a host of other government departments.

When responsible film makers and famous actors take gross liberties with facts and mix fantasy with fiction, playing on local prejudice against politicians and bureaucrats, it results in historical distortions, leading to younger Indians believing that the political leadership of India and MEA were and continue to be completely callous and indifferent to the fate of so many of their compatriots stranded in a dangerous war zone. It is important to underline that the Indian political leadership, cutting across party lines, along with MEA and concerned ministries, have always responded quickly and effectively to the Kuwait crisis and other evacuations such as the Indian Navy’s Operation Sukoon in Lebanon in 2006, Operation Safe Homecoming in Libya in 2011, and more recently the Indian Navy’s heroic efforts, along with support from the Indian Air Force and Air India, to rescue more than 5,000 Indians and others stranded in Yemen.

Perhaps it is time for Bollywood to do a reality check and produce another rousing film like “Airlift”, but this time focussing on the real, unsung and forgotten heroes of these evacuations. They owe it to India and to those Indians who cared enough for their compatriots to work day and night to bring them home safely. They owe it to the history and posterity of this great nation.

*Bhaswati Mukherjee is a former Indian ambassador. She can be contacted at russtytota@gmail.com

After months of preparation, national, state, and local police have rolled out a comprehensive mass surveillance effort in the San Francisco Bay Area as the Super Bowl approaches. If you happen to be in the area over the next few days, you can expect much high-tech gadgetry and police time will be used to watch, catalogue, and analyze your activities.

April Glaser provides the details in her new Wired article “If You Go Near the Super Bowl, You Will Be Surveilled Hard.” The Super Bowl stadium and the nearby cities, she explains, have been converted into a hyped-up mass surveillance zone in which surveillance technology — cell phone tracking devices; video cameras; facial recognition and other biometrics technology; automated license plate readers; and phone call, text and social media monitoring software — will be used with abandon on individuals who happen to be in the area. Glaser explains that the scooped up information will flow to, and be processed in, fusion centers where national, state, and local police work in coordination.

Say you just want the government not to invade your privacy, Glaser says the only option is to stay out of the Bay Area over the next few days:

If all this surveillance in the name of security makes you uncomfortable and you’d rather not have your face, car, and cell phone activity tracked across the Bay Area, you have only one option: Don’t go anywhere near the big game.

Exercising this option, however, will keep you free from only some of the surveillance, and only in the short term. Mass surveillance by all levels of government is expanding. What is happening in the San Francisco Bay Area is a practice run for what many people in government would like to see rolled out soon nationwide.

This article was published at the RonPaul Institute.

Iran’s élite are at loggerheads. Situation normal, one might say, except that the in-fighting is becoming more vicious by the day, exacerbated by the forthcoming elections. As Iran prepares for the vote, the power struggle between the hardliners on the one hand, and the moderates and reformists – the pro-Rouhanis – on the other, is intensifying.

Everything is not black and white in Iran’s body politic. There are two main political camps – Reformists and Principlists (conservative supporters of the Supreme Leader dedicated to protecting the ideological principles of the Islamic Revolution). The respected Speaker of the Iran’s parliament Ali Larijani, is nominally a Principlist, but he has supported Hassan Rouhani from the moment he became president. In fact, his support has been so strong that it has infuriated many hard-liners in parliament who have even accused Larijani – well-known for his anti-American views – of being a covert supporter of the US.

In particular, opponents of the nuclear deal were furious with the way Larijani, as Speaker, ushered through parliament’s ratification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which marked the successful outcome of Iran’s nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 (US, UK, France. Russia, China and Germany). Whispers began to circulate that he was about to join the Reformists in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. In the event, on registration day Larijani announced that he was entering the fray as an independent.

Nevertheless the fact that moderate Principlist figures like Larijani strongly support the Rouhani administration has created internal tensions. Asadollah Badamchian, a respected member of the group, recently said, “We are working hard to unify the Principlist movement…for the parliamentary elections.” They are inviting prominent politicians such as the Supreme Leader’s foreign policy adviser Ali Akbar Velayati, Tehran mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Ali Larijani himself to form an advisory council tasked with bringing unity to the movement. But with Larijani standing as an independent, some political observers believe that after the elections the Reform Movement might approach him to join them, or at least to enter into some form of cooperation, with the aim of continuing their support for Rouhani’s liberalizing programme.

Tensions have existed in the top echelons of Iran’s regime for decades, but Rouhani’s victory in the 2013 presidential election have given them a sharper edge. As he began to implement the change in approach to the West that had obviously been agreed well in advance with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, hardliners in the top echelons pitched a rearguard action against every phase of the nuclear deal as it was hammered out.

The end of international sanctions, far from being greeted on all sides, is only intensifying the in-fighting among the faction-ridden élite. Fundamentalists not only believe the price demanded was too high in terms of the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but are determined that Iran will renege on the conditions whenever it suits.

Since taking over as Supreme Leader in 1989, Khamenei has always made sure that no individual or group, including among his own hard-line allies, gains enough power to challenge his authority. So Rouhani cannot count on his political support, either in respect of the nuclear deal, or on domestic policy, before the elections in late-February 2016 for the Majlis, Iran’s parliament.

According to the Islamic Republic’s constitution the election of the Majlis must be monitored by the body known as the Guardian Council, a hard-line group controlled by Khamenei. The world gets to hear very little about the long-running dispute between senior hard-liners in the administration and Rouhani and his supporters about how much power the Guardian Council has, or should have, in vetting electoral candidates.

Based on past practice, the Guardian Council could engage in mass disqualifications of candidates and eliminate entire political groups. On January 16, 2016 Iranian television carried a statement from the Guardian Council to the effect that more than half of the record number of 12,000 candidates to register in the forthcoming parliamentary elections were unqualified to run. Many of the disqualified candidates came from the Reformist and moderate camps, groups that would have been allied with the president in creating a more open political climate in the country.

During a press conference the next day Rouhani said he would use all his powers to address the disqualifications, and hoped the Supreme Leader’s comments about having lively elections would be fulfilled. On January 18, Elham Aminzadeh, legal deputy to the president, announced that Rouhani was “negotiating with the Guardian Council over the disqualification of candidates.” If a mistake had been made, she said, they would seek to restore a candidate’s registration.

It appeared that parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani was also in talks with the Guardian Council over the disqualifications. Mohammad Reza Tabesh, a member of parliament, said that Larijani was seeking to create a work group with members of the Guardian Council so that candidates who were disqualified could have a special hearing to present their complaints in person.

“Rouhani has gained even more popularity compared to 2013 because of his nuclear success,” said a senior Iranian official. “People know that Rouhani’s policy ended Iran’s isolation and their economic hardship. He is their hero.”
Rouhani’s increasing popularity might not be to the Supreme Leader’s liking. Khamenei depends less on popular acclaim than on the support of the hard-line element within Iran’s internal power structure. To retain it he might feel obliged to cut his president down to size. This is why political analysts within Iran examine the entrails of every move that Khamenei makes.

For example, his unshakeable rooted opposition to the US – the “Great Satan” – cannot but be music to the ears of his fundamentalist supporters. In a succession of speeches Khamenei has made it very clear that the nuclear deal (Iran’s “victory” he dubs it) affects Iran’s basic enmity with the US not one jot. “I reiterate the need to be vigilant about the deceit and treachery of arrogant countries, especially the United States,” he said, on January 19, 2016.

He believes that the US will try to exploit the forthcoming elections for its own ends. In streetwise belligerent mood, he told a meeting of prayer leaders early in January: “Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections, but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the enemies’ will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and as before will punch them in the mouth.”

The truth is that however popular Rouhani might have become, without Khamenei’s blessing his supporters could get nowhere in the 2016 elections. So the big question is how much leeway can the Supreme Leader allow Rouhani and his supporters, and still retain the balance of power in the body politic that he regards as essential to his own survival?

In short, will Khamenei bow to popular pressure and give his blessing to Rouhani’s bid to fulfil his liberalising pledges to the electorate, or will the internal fundamentalist pressures prove too strong?

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz won the Iowa Caucus, upsetting frontrunner Donald Trump. The Monday showdown featured a three-way contest between Cruz, Trump and Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

Texas Senator Cruz modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting evangelical and conservative leaders, according to the Washington Post.

“Tonight is a victory for the grassroots. Tonight is a victory for courageous conservatives across the state of Iowa and across this great nation,” Cruz told his supporters. “We’re inspired by each and every one of you.”

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Cruz had 28 percent over Trump’s 24 percent. In the night’s biggest surprise, Rubio nearly caught Trump, finishing with 23 percent of the vote.

Rubio is viewed by many Republicans as a more mainstream alternative to Trump and Cruz.

As Trump and Rubio battled for second place, the senator saw his results as a victory.

“We have taken the first step, but an important step, to winning the nomination,” Rubio said to his supporters in Des Moines, according to AP. He congratulated Cruz, saying his rival “earned his victory.”

Trump said he was “honored” by a second place finish in Iowa, and continued to fight in New Hampshire, the next primary state.

Cruz’s victory is something of an upset considering Trump was leading in multiple polls heading into the caucus.

Islamic State (Daesh) militants have kidnapped at least 400 civilians, including women and children, in an assault on Syria’s eastern city of Deir Ezzor, a monitoring group says.

Following its Saturday attack on Deir Ezzor, Daesh “abducted at least 400 civilians from the residents of the al-Baghaliyeh neighborhood it captured, and adjacent areas in the northwest of the city,” the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said on Sunday.

Rami Abdel Rahman, the SOHR director, added that all of the abductees were Sunni Muslims, including families of pro-government fighters. He added that they were transported to other areas under Daesh control.

“There is genuine fear for their lives, there is a fear that the group might execute them as it has done before in other areas,” he stated.

Syria’s state news agency SANA said some 300 civilians were killed in the Daesh attack on the city.

Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi condemned the “barbaric massacre,” saying the responsibility for the crimes lies with the supporters of militant groups active the Arab state.

Deir Ezzor has been effectively under siege by Daesh militants since early 2015, when the militants launched an offensive, capturing the city of Palmyra in Homs Province, then cutting off the remaining supply line to the city.

The Daesh siege has led to a severe food crisis in Dayr al-Zawr, where 70 percent of the residents are women and children.

The UN said Saturday that some 20 people died of starvation in the besieged Syrian city last year.

Some 400,000 people in Syria are under siege as a foreign-backed militancy is wreaking havoc across much of the country.

The conflict in Syria, which started in March 2011, has reportedly claimed the lives of more than 260,000 people and left over one million injured.

Original article

By Sandeep Bamzai*

At a recent global business summit in the capital, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made some very telling points which didn’t receive adequate media play, or rather the relevant parts just before the budget didn’t necessarily get a wider dispersal. The remarks prefaced with a lot of what needs to be done and what has been achieved kept the bitter pill for the end. And it is this segment of his speech which unequivocally telegraphed his intention to the audience. Believe me, it must have sent shivers down the spines of India Inc. For it reflects a changing mindset. I can bet that that the impending budget will definitely see a spitting image of some of these points.

I am now going to quote the particular spine chilling paragraph for top industry honchos:

“I have been referring to cooking gas, fertilizer and kerosene subsidies. I must confess that I am surprised by the way words are used by experts on this matter. When a benefit is given to farmers or to the poor, experts and government officers normally call it a subsidy. However, I find that if a benefit is given to industry or commerce, it is usually called an “incentive” or a “subvention”. We must ask ourselves whether this difference in language also reflects a difference in our attitude? Why is it that subsidies going to the well-off are portrayed in a positive manner? Let me give you an example. The total revenue loss from incentives to corporate tax payers was over Rs. 62,000 crores. Dividends and long term capital gains on shares traded in stock exchanges are totally exempt from income tax even though it is not the poor who earn them. Since it is exempt, it is not even counted in the Rs. 62,000 crores. Double Taxation avoidance treaties have in some cases resulted in double non-taxation. This also is not counted in the Rs. 62,000 crores. Yet these are rarely referred to by those who seek reduction of subsidies. Perhaps these are seen as incentives for investment. I wonder whether, if the fertiliser subsidy is re-named as “incentive for agricultural production”, some experts will view it differently.”

Now this lingua franca signifies an important change in thinking. Somewhere in these 20 months, the PM has understood that jibes like suit boot ki sarkar have actually stuck like a limpet. He has also begun to understand that India resides in its villages and a daily mass migration is debilitating the civic infrastructure in urban agglomerates. No skill and low skill migrants from agrarian India are only adding to the pressure on the already hard pressed employment calculus. If the learnings of this speech were to be transposed to policy redesign, then expect some dynamic changes in the days to come, more so expect some of it to find space in the budget document as well. If one were to read the fine print of the aforementioned portion of the PM’s speech, then the wealth of the richest shall take a sharp knock, besides the stock markets which will have to take it on the chin. Ultimately the PM has realised that the bottom of the pyramid is where India lives and votes and one needs to plug and play with that constituent more than anyone else.

As we know, most economic indicators are still on skid row, the economy remains stagnant, but the PM chose to explain at the same summit that all was not lost:

“You may be interested to know that

• India’s highest ever urea fertiliser production was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever production of ethanol as blended fuel, benefiting sugar cane farmers, was in 2015.
• The highest number of new cooking gas connections to the rural poor was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever output of coal was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever generation of electricity was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever quantity of cargo handled by major ports was in 2015.
• India’s fastest average turnaround time in ports was in 2015.
• India’s highest ever increase in railway capital expenditure was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever number of new highway kilometres awarded was in 2015.
• India’s highest ever production of motor vehicles was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever software exports were achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever rank in World Bank Doing Business indicators, was achieved in 2015.
• India’s highest ever foreign exchange reserves were achieved in 2015. ”

Rising external debt cause for concern

GDP growth is being revised downwards, industrial production and manufacturing numbers remain in a shambles, some recovery is evident in automobile sales, but one swallow doesn’t make a summer. The biggest imponderable remains wide spread rural distress which shows no signs of alleviation and investment pipelines which remain drier than the Thar. What is not being factored into the equation is India’s burgeoning external debt position. India’s total external debt at March-end last year was $475.8 billion, up 6.6 percent from the corresponding period a year ago. As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), external debt was 23.8 percent at March-end, up from 23.6 percent in 2013-14.

“A cross-country comparison based on International Debt Statistics 2015 of the World Bank, which presents the debt data for 2013, shows India continues to be among the less vulnerable countries, with its external debt indicators comparing with other indebted developing countries,” the finance ministry said. This March, external debt is expected to be at a dangerous tipping of $500 billion. India’s External Debt at end-September 2015 stood at $ 483.2 billion, recording an increase of $ 8.0 billion (1.7 per cent) over the level at end-March 2015; Rise in external debt during the period was due to long-term external debt particularly commercial borrowings and NRI deposits. Long-term debt at end-September 2015 was placed at US$ 397.1 billion, showing an increase of US$ 7.4 billion (1.9 per cent) over the level at end-March 2015. Short-term external debt witnessed an increase of 0.7 per cent and stood at US$ 86.1 billion at end-September 2015.

A stronger US dollar and/or rise in real rates will hurt economies where reserves are low or debt is high. While India’s foreign reserves are rising, they remain low relative to external debt. The rising share of non-government external debt is a concern. While government external debt has been stable at 4-5% of GDP since the 2008/09 fiscal year, the share of non-government obligations is up from 13% of GDP to 19% in the 2014/15 fiscal year. This rise is also responsible for the overall increase in external debt. It is believed that RBI Governor has advised the government to write down bad loans. The rising NPAS may well implode the banking system and this is another major worry for the government.

This budget is a make or break opportunity for Mr Modi. The growing catalogue of economic woes and worries will only accentuate this year. China’s unwinding is still incomplete. It has to be now for transformative ideas. After this, he is out of bullets.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Senior American officials say they are working with their Saudi counterparts to determine the facts around the cases of nine US nationals detained on charges of terrorism in the Kingdom.

“The US is working closely with the Saudi authorities right now to try to figure it out, to see exactly what the situation is,” John Kirby, a spokesman of the US Department of State, said at a press briefing in Washington.

“The US Embassy in Riyadh is also aware of the reports alleging that several US citizens were detained in Saudi Arabia,” said Frager Lincoln, a spokesman of the embassy, when asked for more information here Tuesday. Lincoln said: “The US Department of State takes its obligation to assist US citizens abroad seriously.”

The officials of the two countries are in touch with each other after reports surfaced that a total of nine Americans are currently imprisoned in Saudi jails including eight detained in the past three weeks.

According to reports, four Americans were detained in Saudi Arabia over the past fortnight on suspected terror offenses, bringing the total number of US nationals in Saudi jails to nine, according to an online list of inmates posted by the Saudi Interior Ministry. Four others were detained in November and December last year, according to the site, which describes their cases as under investigation.

A ninth American, imprisoned since 2007, was convicted, according to the ministry, which did not say what the conviction was for or the length of the sentence handed down by the Saudi court. The case is subject to appeal. Asked about the charges against the US nationals, Kirby said: “We have seen these media reports and are working hard to ascertain more details about them and about the veracity of them.”

“And we are in touch with the Saudi authorities, but I don’t have anything definitive with respect to the actual truth of these reports,” he added. “I’m just not at liberty to say more until we know more … and when I have something more specifically I can speak to,” he said.

(EurActiv) — Greece’s Syriza-led government is under attack over its alleged efforts to take control of country’s independent authorities.

A recently introduced law has raised questions over the independence of the country’s competition authority (HCC), while profound concern is being expressed over the selection of the new board of the Regulatory Authority for Energy (RAE).

The latter’s independence is vital for the economy, as well as a mandatory term under the third bailout agreed on by Athens and its lenders last summer.

Opposition parties in Athens blame the government for trying to control the independent national authorities, and create a “party-based” public administration.

On the other hand, Syriza claims that it wants to ensure transparency in public affairs.

The HCC case

Under a new bill, the age limit of automatic withdrawal from the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) is set at 73 years for the president, and vice-president and at 70 years for the rest of the board members.

Currently, Dimitris Kyritsakis, the head of the HCC, is 75 years old which means that he will not be able to continue in his mandate.

The new law, also, provides that the board members of the HCC should have no by blood or marriage relation with any person who is a member of the Greek or the European Parliament, or the government.

This provision, according to HCC officials, is photographing the current Vice-President, Dimitris Loukas, whose wife is a lawmaker of the opposition right-wing New Democracy party.

“It is a first important step towards ensuring transparency in public life […] something that unfortunately previous governments did not take,” Marina Chrysoveloni, spokeswoman of the government’s right-wing coalition partner, the Independent Greeks, said.

The independence under question

Syriza government’s move triggered the strong reaction of HCC, whose independence is under severe threat.

In a statement, the HCC noted that the amendment was introduced with rapid procedures and that it did not meet the prerequisites of good lawmaking.

“It deals a serious blow to the independence of the HCC,” the communique reads.

The HCC also noted that the amendment was submitted without being previously consulted, raising serious issues over the efficiency of its operation.

News portal Euro2day quoted Kyritsakis, as saying: “They [Syriza government] seek resignations with provisions that apply to the [current] members of the Competition Commission.”

“Respect the independence of the Authority. Let us do our job,” he warned.

The energy sector

In the meantime, the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER), which represents the national regulators, expressed its concern over the new limited role of RAE.

In a report published last week, CEER stressed that RAE did not have any institutional role in drawing the new national support schemes for renewables in Greece.

On the way to an integrated energy union, the report reads, national regulators should have an exclusive right in shaping the framework of renewables.

Tuesday a transparency committee of the Greek parliament examined, through a hearing, the candidates for the vacant seats of the second Vice-President and the members of the Plenary of the Energy Regulatory Authority.

Reports in Athens suggest that the new members are personal choices of the minister and are not directly related to the subject, putting into question their ability to deliver ahead of the energy challenges Greece is facing.

Syriza “allergic” to independent authorities

Giorgos Koumoutsakos, spokesperson of the right-wing New Democracy party, accused the government of trying to kill the independent authorities.

He stated that the Syriza-led government was “allergic” to independent authorities in public administration.

“We want strong, functional, and independent authorities, with a specific role rather than being controlled by the government. So we will resist any attempt to dismantle [the institutions],” he said, adding that the issue is linked with the democratic functioning of the country.

Along the same lines, centrist Potami lawmaker, Charis Theocharis, said that the Syriza government was trying to get rid of the current HCC presidium.

“This is a blatant government intervention to control the public administration. A clear interference in an independent authority,” Theocharis stressed.

“I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, ‘We shall do this, and we shall do that,’” Clinton said recently in response to Bernie Sanders’s proposals.  “That ain’t the real world we’re living in.“

So what’s possible in “the real world we’re living in?”

There are two dominant views about how presidents accomplish fundamental change.

The first might be called the “deal-maker-in-chief,” by which presidents threaten or buy off powerful opponents.

Barack Obama got the Affordable Care Act this way – gaining the support of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, by promising them far more business and guaranteeing that Medicare wouldn’t use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices.

But such deals can be expensive to the public (the tab for the pharmaceutical exemption is about $16 billion a year), and they don’t really change the allocation of power. They just allow powerful interests to cash in.

The costs of such deals in “the world we’re living in” are likely to be even higher now. Powerful interests are more powerful than ever thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opening the floodgates to big money.

Which takes us to the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.

Teddy Roosevelt got a progressive income tax, limits on corporate campaign contributions, regulation of foods and drugs, and the dissolution of giant trusts – not because he was a great dealmaker but because he added fuel to growing public demands for such changes.

It was at a point in American history similar to our own. Giant corporations and a handful of wealthy people dominated American democracy. The lackeys of the “robber barons” literally placed sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.

The American public was angry and frustrated. Roosevelt channeled that anger and frustration into support of initiatives that altered the structure of power in America. He used the office of the president – his “bully pulpit,” as he called it – to galvanize political action.

Could Hillary Clinton do the same? Could Bernie Sanders?

Clinton fashions her prospective presidency as a continuation of Obama’s. Surely Obama understood the importance of mobilizing the public against the moneyed interests. After all, he had once been a community organizer.

After the 2008 election he even turned his election campaign into a new organization called “Organizing for America” (now dubbed “Organizing for Action”), explicitly designed to harness his grassroots support.

So why did Obama end up relying more on deal-making than public mobilization? Because he thought he needed big money for his 2012 campaign.

Despite OFA’s public claims (in mailings, it promised to secure the “future of the progressive movement”), it morphed into a top-down campaign organization to raise big money.

In the interim, Citizens United had freed “independent” groups like OFA to raise almost unlimited funds, but retained limits on the size of contributions to formal political parties.

That’s the heart of problem. No candidate or president can mobilize the public against the dominance of the moneyed interests while being dependent on their money. And no candidate or president can hope to break the connection between wealth and power without mobilizing the public.

(A personal note: A few years ago OFA wanted to screen around America the movie Jake Kornbluth and I did about widening inequality, called “Inequality for All” – but only on condition we delete two minutes identifying big Democratic donors.  We refused. They wouldn’t show it.)

In short, “the real world we’re living in” right now won’t allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement.

Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign. The passion that’s fueling it isn’t really about Bernie Sanders. Had Elizabeth Warren run, the same passion would be there for her.

It’s about standing up to the moneyed interests and restoring our democracy.

Oliver Ivanovic is today a political prisoner being held as a result of an unholy – and rather short-sighted – alliance between the internationals, Belgrade and the current Kosovo Albanian leadership.

By Gerard M. Gallucci*

On January 21, judges of the European Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Mitrovica declared Kosovo Serb political activist, Oliver Ivanovic, guilty of “war crime against the civilian population”, while acquitting him of murder, inciting murder or attempted murder. Presiding Judge, Roxana Comsa, found that Ivanovic – while not a leader of the “Bridge Watchers” – had “known” that an “operation of expulsions and killings of Albanians was under way” in north Mitrovica and “willingly complied” – apparently by not acting to prevent it. The judges reached their decision on the basis of the suspect and sketchy testimony of a few “witnesses” in a trial 14 years after events that occurred in the context of NATO bombing and widespread ethnic violence. The court sentenced Ivanovic to nine years – he was originally arrested in 2014 and released into house detention last September – and carried him back to prison on January 28. The prosecution, trial and renewed imprisonment were politically-motivated and carried out to serve the interests of the Europeans and Americans left holding the Kosovo bag as well as a Serbian government eager to wipe Kosovo Serbs off its shoes. The whole affair raises grave doubts about rule of law in Kosovo.

The facts need to be made clear:

• In 1999, the violence between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo was only one part of a confrontation going back decades. Both sides did bad things and the NATO bombing of Serbia from the air – meant to save the West from having to put actual peacekeepers on the ground – plunged the territory further into conflict.
• Oliver Ivanovic was part of a group of local Serbs acting on behalf of their community. These “Bridge Watchers” also did bad things (then and after). But the “witnesses” produced by EULEX failed to prove that Ivanovic ordered killings or took part in them. Rather what thin evidence there was suggests that he did nothing more than be swept up in the general breakdown of order.
• Oliver Ivanovic was the first and most capable of the northern Serbs to see that the best way to serve his community was to work politically within the prevailing system and with the international community. He learned English, spoke Albanian and served at different times in the Pristina institutions alongside Kosovo Albanians as well as, after Kosovo independence, a Serbian government official.
• When I knew Oliver – during my time as the UN Regional Representative in the north (2005-08) – he worked consistently for peace and compromise between Serbs and Albanians. Ivanovic saw the potential for Kosovo Serbs, north and south, to work together to serve their common interests within the Kosovo they found themselves. My experience of Oliver leads me to find it very difficult to imagine him ordering the killing of anyone or taking part in such acts in any way.
• Oliver Ivanovic is capable, courageous, and pragmatic. For this reason, he was not always popular in his own community and was sometimes the target of abuse from fellow Serbs (who tended to prefer the radical leaders who never moved on from being Bridge Watchers). Nevertheless, he is the one Kosovo Serb of whom I am aware with the political skills, intelligence and temperament to be the strong, positive leader that his community needs in order to take its full place within a peaceful, democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo.

This last point seems to be the nub of Ivanovic’ problem. Apparently no one wants the Kosovo Serb community to have a strong leader able to work for practical solutions to practical issues. The Kosovo Albanians probably still just hope that over time the northern Serbs will depart. (Indeed, Serbs have begun to leave the north.) EULEX wanted to arrest a prominent Serb to balance its belated efforts to deal with past and present abuses on the Kosovo Albanian side. Oliver Ivanovic was an easier target than the still at-large local radicals who bedeviled all efforts at peaceful change and therefore were loved (and feared) by their community. Arresting them would have led to thousands onto the streets rather than the handful that have come out for Oliver.

Belgrade too preferred – and apparently still does – Oliver off the stage. The Serbian government wants more than anything to move forward on EU membership and sees Kosovo Serbs as both ultimately dispensable and meanwhile a stick to use to beat Pristina. For their purposes, they want Kosovo Serb complacent “leaders” who will do what they are told and remain content with what they can rip-off through double-dipping and petty corruption. It was Belgrade that reportedly suggested to the international prosecutors that they take Ivanovic when they were looking around for a Kosovo Serbian head to take.

It is harder to understand why the US and the smarter Europeans let EULEX throw Oliver out the window. Certainly, the Americans understand by now that turning over Kosovo to the Albanians has not produced the sort of outcome they can now declare a success and leave safely behind. The Kosovo Serb community – empowered by the various provisions derived from the Ahtisaari Plan and properly led – could provide an important leavening element within the context of the fragmented Kosovo Albanian political spectrum. It would also be the only way to ensure the survival of a multi-ethnic Kosovo. The internationals should be working with Oliver not imprisoning him. The US is key here because the Europeans are so feckless. The Americans should prevail on EULEX to stop shooting them in the feet.

Of course the Americans seem to have a preference for complacent leaders too. They have long supported Hashim Thaci – mediocre at best and quite possibly deeply compromised – over the far more capable and pragmatic Ramush Haradinaj. Haradinaj has lately been flirting with the more radical fringe perhaps because the US and EU continue to threaten him with re-arrest. But he is genuinely popular as well as being independently minded. I’d bet that Ramush and Oliver would work quite well with each other.

Oliver Ivanovic is today a political prisoner being held as a result of an unholy – and rather short-sighted – alliance between the internationals, Belgrade and the current Kosovo Albanian leadership. (Interestingly, the internationals have let a former KLA leader and local mayor, Sami Lushtaku, regularly violate his detention conditions on spurious health claims, despite having been handed an even more lengthy prison term.) Ivanovic deserves to be freed on moral grounds but also because the people of Kosovo – and all who want to see the country succeed – need him to be able to play his part in political developments. If the case must proceed through appeal, then he should be released immediately into house arrest as Ivanovic has clearly demonstrated he is not a flight risk and is determined to clear his name.

*Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat and UN peacekeeper. He worked as part of US efforts to resolve the conflicts in Angola, South Africa and Sudan and as Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008 and as Chief of Staff for the UN mission in East Timor from November 2008 until June 2010. He has a PhD in political science, taught at the University of Pittsburgh, University of Arkansas, George Washington University and Drake University and now works as an independent consultant.

Religious and ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka want President Maithripala Sirisena to safeguard their rights and cultural identity in the proposed new constitution

“We (Tamil people) experience freedom but need more space to claim our identity as Sri Lankans,” Father A.J. Yavis, former director of Caritas Jaffna told ucanews.com.

One year after coming to the power on a reformist platform, Sirisena proposed a new constitution Jan. 9 as a way to protect and integrate its religious and ethnic minorities by guaranteeing their fundamental rights and freedoms following a long civil war.

Since 1983, the Sri Lankan government had been embroiled in a brutal war against the Tamil Tigers, an insurgent group that fought to carve out a separate Tamil homeland in the country’s North and East until it was defeated militarily by government forces in May 2009.

The Tamil Tigers claimed decades of systematic discrimination under successive governments led by the Sinhalese ethnic majority.

“If the new constitution is not seen to be equal and just, efforts at drafting it will be in vain,” said Father Yavis.

Sri Lanka is a multiethnic and multireligious country. Buddhism is the main state religion under the current constitution.

Close to 70 percent of Sri Lankans are Buddhists, with Muslims, Hindus and Catholics, the other major religions, being approximately 7 percent. In terms of ethnicity, about 75 percent of Sri Lankans are Sinhalese and about 5 percent Tamils.

“The new constitution should address the need of all communities irrespective of religion or ethnicity as all of them are citizens of one sovereign nation,” said Venerable Badiwewa Diya Sena Thero, abbot at the Kandakkuliya temple.

The constitution should not be produced by one group of people sharing the same interest but instead include stakeholders who represent victims of religious and ethnic conflicts from all the parts of the island, said the Buddhist monk.

“Catholics being a minority in Sri Lanka have come together for the first time to voice out the needs of all minorities. We want to make use of this opportunity to address the needs of minorities,” Thilina Alhakoon, national convener of Jathika Kithunu Pawra association, told ucanews.com.

The association is a collaboration of about 20 Catholic movements including the Young Christian Workers, Catholic Laborers’ Movement and the Catholic Teachers’ Movement.

The government has already started to hear the public on the proposed constitution.

The Mexican Oil Institute (IMP) developed a catalyst adsorbent material that removes 80 percent of organic compounds from hydrocarbon charges before starting the process of hydrodesulfurization (sulfur removing from the hydrocarbon). It also allows Pemex (Mexican Oil Company) to generate ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) more quickly and cheaply.

Its use in a preliminary process will increase the life of the catalyst for up to 30 months over current standards by avoiding high temperatures and pressures during operation in the reactor.

Doctor in Chemical Engineering Rodolfo Mora, head of the project, said that the research initiated by the need of Pemex to convert its production of diesel from 500 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur to ULSD of only 15 ppm, which benefits the environment.

“There are different methods; however, most are slow and catalysts deactivate with time, so we had the need to remove the nitrogen from the load before it entered the units,” Mora said.

The specialist explained that with this material they seek to eliminate the organic nitrogen compounds found in crude oil, as these are strong inhibitors of the hydrodesulfurization process, so by reducing its content production is facilitated and it becomes more profitable.

During the first stage of the research, several Mexican institutions provided different materials (130 in total) to evaluate their adsorption capacity and selectivity of nitrogen compounds.

In the end, the most viable was synthesized by the IMP (IMP-NitSorb), which met the specifications to remove 80 percent of nitrogen through a simple and efficient process. Discovering different routes to prepare it originated several patent applications.

In order to conduct a cost-benefit study for Pemex, the impact of reducing nitrogen before hydrodesulfurization was measured.

“The adsorption process was applied to a load that had an original content of 458 ppm of nitrogen to obtain a product with 87 ppm. Both loads, treated and untreated, were subjected to the hydrodesulfurization process. The results show that under the same conditions, the treated load reduces the reactor temperature between 25 and 30 °C, which increases the service life of the catalyst over the standard 30 months.

During the adsorption process a waste of 26,000 ppm of nitrogen is obtained, which represents about one percent of treated load and for which alternative uses are being sought as the incorporation into the asphalt used in paving roads due to its low volatility,” said the project leader.

Subsequently in pilot studies, it was discovered that the adsorbent material can treat between 200 and 250 barrels of load per ton of adsorbent in each cycle, which means that if it useful life is of one thousand cycles (three years) each ton can treat between 200,000 and 250,000 barrels.

Currently the team is working on scaling the development to an industrial level, which is expected to be operational in a year and a half.

Source: Notimex/Energía en México

The Soviet VIC cipher used in the early 1950s, long known for being complex and secure, may not be as impossible to crack as initially assumed. According to a recent article published in Cryptologia, “Soviet VIC Cipher: No Respector of Kerckoff’s Principles,” cracking the infamous Soviet VIC cipher is possible if one understands the enciphering algorithm.

If one does not know the algorithm, according to the article’s author Jozef Kollar, the cipher indeed lives up to its reputation, and becomes nearly impossible to decipher.

The Soviet VIC Cipher, initially used by the Soviet spy Reino Hayhanen, was believed to be one of the most elaborate hand ciphers of its time. When the United States FBI became aware of the cipher, attempts to decipher it were met with little success. According to Kollar, the FBI was not able to crack the cipher until Hayhanen himself defected to the United States in 1957.

However, Kollar asserts that the cipher “consists of a checkerboard substitution followed by two transpositions,” and “cracking such a substitution alone is not much more difficult than cracking a simple monoalphabetic substitution.”

Agent Hayhanen used five different parts in his cipher, the first four followed consistent patterns and the last was random.

To crack these parts, one must follow a specific key (which includes Hayhanen’s personal information, a specific password, and the date of the Soviet victory over Japan), and three specific permutations. Kollar outlines the precise steps to decryption in his article.

Ultimately, it appears that the Soviet VIC cipher, long known for its impenetrability and difficulty, may not be as impossible to crack as initially believed. As long as one knows the enciphering algorithm, this well-known cipher could indeed be solvable, and one of the biggest mysteries of its time could finally be cracked.

By Matt Hadro

Religious liberty advocates hope a new congressional scorecard will embolden members of Congress to promote freedom for embattled religious minorities worldwide.

“We know that religious liberty is more than just freedom of conscience. It touches everything from national security to trade policy to the fundamental values of what it means to be an American,” said former congressman Frank Wolf, announcing the creation of the Wilberforce Initiative’s International Religious Freedom scorecard. The initiative promotes religious freedom abroad as a “fundamental human right.”

“I am hopeful that the scorecard will be a tool to provide encouragement, an opportunity to increase awareness and advocacy,” he continued, “and to support the cause of religious freedom in the House and the Senate.”

The scorecard, introduced at the National Press Club on Feb. 2, will measure the participation of members of Congress in promoting international religious freedom, chiefly through legislation and caucusing. It will be released twice a year.

“It leverages the collective will of the American people expressed through their representatives in Congress,” Wolf explained.

“Individuals, people of faith, need to know how their representatives are working on this vital issue of religious freedom. In fairness to members of Congress, if they don’t hear from their voters, they may not think their voters care.”

Members will be rated for sponsoring, co-sponsoring, or voting for bills and resolutions approved by the Wilberforce Initiative. A prime example of this legislation would be the H. Con. Res. 75, a concurrent resolution introduced in September calling ISIS atrocities inflicted on Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities “genocide.”

That resolution, while not legally binding, would put pressure on the administration to declare that genocide is taking place and give priority to genocide victims looking to come to the U.S. as refugees.

There are currently only 175 co-sponsors of the resolution, aside from its two original sponsors Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), out of 435 House members, Wolf noted.

“This has been around for months,” he said, noting that religious leaders like Pope Francis, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and Pastor Rick Warren have all referred to the atrocities as genocide.

“And yet we do not see this being brought up in the House, in the Senate, nor in words coming from the administration,” he said.

However, members won’t just be ranked on their votes or sponsorship of legislation, since bills can take months or even years to move through Congress. Wilberforce will monitor their membership in caucuses like the Congressional International Religious Freedom Caucus and the Religious Minorities in the Middle East Caucus.

These groups promote information and advocacy on behalf of persecuted religious minorities and persons targeted for their beliefs.

And actions that can’t be ranked in a system, like “engaging in dialogue,” will be taken into account as well although they won’t be listed on the scorecard, Lou Ann Sabatier of Wilberforce Initiative explained. “We also know that there are countless ways that members and their staff work behind the scenes to advance the cause of religious liberty,” Wolf said.

The issue is so important because so many around the globe are persecuted for their beliefs, panel members insisted at the press conference introducing the scorecard.

Religious minorities worldwide are threatened by a “communal majoritarianism,” said Farahnaz Ispahani, journalist and former member of Pakistan’s National Assembly. This is especially evident with anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Europe, Christians persecuted in the Middle East, North Africa, China, and North Korea, and the persecution of both Muslims and Christians in India and Myanmar, she said.

The percentage of Christians as part of the total Middle Eastern population fell from 20 percent at the start of the 20th century to just 5 percent now, she said. In Pakistan, religious minorities made up 23 percent of the population before the 1947 partition, but now they are only 3 percent of the populace.

“I trust that a scorecard will help monitor Congress’ performance in standing up for oppressed religious minorities in every part of the world,” she said. “The current practice of ignoring violations of the principle of freedom of belief for strategic or political reasons neither sets U.S. foreign policy objectives, nor does it represent America’s lofty principles.”

Religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is one of America’s founding principles, Wolf insisted, quoting President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 Constitution Day address that the document was a “covenant” with “all of mankind.”

Religious liberty continues to be a covenant, Wolf said, a “covenant with Sister Diana in Iraq today,” the Iraqi nun who testified before Congress about the brutal persecution of Iraqi Christians by ISIS.

“We know how important religious freedom is. It supports human dignity, social cohesion, independent thinking, and the ability to authentically live lives that pursue truth, justice, and mercy,” he said.

As Singapore grows as an oil and LNG trading hub in Asia, East Africa is developing its huge potential as a natural gas producer. Singapore can play a bridging role, connecting LNG producers in East Africa to buyers in Asia.

By Otavio Veras*

The growing importance of adopting cleaner ways to generate electricity worldwide has brought LNG into the spotlight as one of the most affordable and less environmentally damaging fuels. Singapore, with its strategic location, has daring plans to grow into the preferred trading hub for LNG in Asia.

Singapore is already Asia’s leading oil pricing and oil trading hub and therefore already has considerable infrastructure in place: it gathers major buyers, sellers and decision makers in the same place; it has a pool of highly-skilled human capital in a multi-lingual environment; it has wide availability of financial and trading instruments; it has internationally recognised legal, regulatory and tax frameworks and attractive fiscal policies and incentives.

Singapore’s LNG game plan

Singapore imported its first LNG in March 2013 and currently has three storage tanks with a total throughput capacity of six million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). Further expansion began by the end of 2014, with regasification facilities to be completed by 2017 and a fourth storage tank by 2018, increasing the annual capacity to 11 Mtpa.

In December 2014, the Singapore Energy Market Authority (EMA) received nine bids from suppliers, from which three will be shortlisted to become LNG aggregators in the city-state. Diversification is important as 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated through natural gas.

By end of January 2016, Singapore Exchange (SGX) launched a mix of financial instruments to allow more flexibility on the contracts for liquefied natural gas. These contracts will be the first based on a price index created in Singapore and expected to become the new benchmark for LNG pricing in Asia. It is named after Singapore’s most famous drink: SLInG. The Singapore SLInG will be used to develop products such as financial swaps for hedging purposes, and eventually in developing a physical delivery mechanism in Asia.

The plan to become an LNG hub in the region gains momentum with the growing trend in Southeast Asia to adopt small-scale LNG solutions. The region has numerous small and remote islands, and as such small LNG processing plants would be the way to provide gas to locations not connected to the gas pipelines network.

Singapore’s Storage Capacity and East African Natural Gas

Singapore will use its growing storage capacity to receive large LNG shipments and distribute them to smaller LNG tankers that will then supply the regional market. The past years saw a growing demand for LNG contracts on volumes smaller than one million tonnes a year. Pavilion Energy, the LNG unit of Singapore’s state-owned investment company Temasek Holdings, and companies such as Shell, Tokyo Gas and Indonesian Pertamina, are investing heavily in small-scale LNG solutions.

Currently, Singapore imports and trades LNG from Australia. In the near future the city-state will take advantage of the proximity to East Africa and become a large importer of LNG from Mozambique and Tanzania. These two countries started investing in natural gas exploration, and are now just a few years away from having all the infrastructure and production ready to start pumping natural gas to the LNG tankers in port terminals in the region.

Mozambique and Tanzania, both facing the Indian Ocean on the East side of Africa, hold enormous reserves of natural gas. Mozambique has proven reserves of 100 trillion cubic feet, and in 2014 it ranked 14th among the countries with the largest natural gas reserves, according to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Tanzania, with reserves of 55 trillion cubic feet, has enough gas to meet about 11 years of demand from U.S. homes.

The Singapore Link

The huge potential resting in both countries’ subsurface is still to be fully exploited. Currently, Mozambique’s natural gas production is only 152 Billion cubic feet per year, making the country the 54th largest producer in the world. Tanzania ranks much lower, producing only 35 Billion cubic feet of gas per year.

More than US$30 billion is expected to be invested in the natural gas sector in Mozambique to build capacity to produce 20 million tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with first exports due to start in 2019-2020. In Tanzania, Petroleum Development Corp. has plans to construct an LNG plant with a capacity of processing 10 million tons of gas per year, to be completed by 2020. McKinsey estimates a regional potential of about 400GW of gas-generated power by 2040, with Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania accounting for 60% of the total.

Singapore will be well-placed to link the natural gas producers in East Africa to buyers in Asia, providing an organised marketplace for LNG in the region based on the switchboard business model, intermediating between suppliers and buyers. Mozambique and Tanzania will be the main players in East Africa, developing their natural gas production capabilities to meet the growing demand for this type of fuel in Asia. Both these African countries have endured high levels of poverty, and the exploitation of their newly discovered gas deposits will go a long way to address their developmental needs.

Singapore will be an excellent bridge between East and West. By taking advantage of its strategic position and by heavily investing in building up storage capacity for LNG, the city-state will have a strong potential to become the main LNG trading and distribution point between Asia and East Africa.

Otavio Veras is an adjunct researcher of the NTU-SBF Centre for African Studies, a trilateral platform for government, business and academia to promote knowledge and expertise on Africa, established by Nanyang Technological University and the Singapore Business Federation. This article was written specially for RSIS Commentary.

Terrorism and security have newly become one of the top priorities in post-Soviet Central Asia. States are discussing how to face the threat of a strengthening of the terrorism and, in particular, of the Islamic State. The attention to this phenomenon has been growing in relation to the Russian involvement in the Syrian war and the risk of a “contagion” that, from North Africa and Middle East, could affect Central Asia.

Both internally and regionally, during 2015 there have been discussions about anti-terrorist measures to implement and focused on the security aspects. But, actually, what is the level of the threat the states are facing? In the face of concerns expressed by national governments, sources and analyses point out a more intricate reality that needs to be examined more in depth. The possibility of a strengthening of the radical groups is concrete and different elements prove it.

There are no certain figures, but it is estimated that from these countries diverse thousands of youths joined ISIS or other Islamic radical groups in Syria and Iraq. Their presence is considered to be around 1,500-2,000 militants, up to a maximum of even 4,000 people. Official numbers, in fact, could also hide governments’ strategy to underestimate or exaggerate the number of foreign fighters, in order to purse their own internal purposes in facing radical groups.

Beyond these figures, what concerns is the possibility of an “expansion” of the Caliphate in the Eurasian region that could take place also with the adhesion of indigenous militias to ISIS, its ideology and its strategy. An example of such risk comes from the pledge of loyalty made by the radical Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan last August.

However, it is not only a matter of ISIS, because another factor to be considered is the evolution of the fighting in Afghanistan. Taliban, indeed, could represent a potential element of instability for bordering countries, like Turkmenistan.

In the face with this situation, the Russian Federation is trying to play its role of leading actor in the region for security issues through the definition of a common anti-terrorism policy, involving all other Central Asian states. Moscow has direct interest in limiting the expansion of Islamist groups, in stabilising bordering countries and in reducing the proliferation of radical elements in its territory.

In addition to Central Asians foreign fighters, what worries Moscow is the presence of 1,500-3,000 Russian citizens in war zones. Moreover, Russia itself has become a land of recruitment for jihadist movements, which acquire new militants from the emigrants resident in the large Russian cities, where tough living conditions pave the way for cultural and social marginalization and the split up between young Islamic workers from the rest of the society. This evolution has made the Russian, the third language – after Arab and English – in Islamic State’s propaganda and recruitment activities.

By its own side, Moscow has military bases and the lead of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the most important regional security structure. In the last CSTO’s summits (in Dushanbe and Moscow) it has been underlined the risk for the five Central Asian states and Russia, but the path to a common anti-terrorist initiative it’s not easy. CSTO doesn’t include two key states like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Moreover, central Asians are wary over a possible return of Russian influence in the region. This concern is in part emerged with the constitution of the Eurasian Economic Union, but is much stronger in relation to the possibility of a Russian-led common defensive policy, because it could be interpreted as a blow to the sovereignty of these countries.

So, even if the issue of a coordinated policy is always on the agenda, the answers against terrorist threat have assumed different faces. Elaborated on the root of problems, prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic reminded us recently in his seminal piece ‘No more War on Terror, please’: “But, terror is a tactics, not an ideology. How can one conduct and win war on tactics? – it is an oxymoron.”

Turkmenistan, for example, has maintained his neutrality position and repeatedly underlined its will to protect the integrity of the state from any kind of intrusion. Even if it is one of those states forced to face the major threat – since reports pointed out incidents at its Afghan borders – Turkmenistan is contrary to any kind of “intrusion” in its sphere of sovereignty. Only in recent days, Ashgabat reached an agreement with Russia for security cooperation, which include the control of Turkmen-Afghan border, in order to limit eventual border crossing by Taliban forces.

In other cases, instead, the menace might be used as an instrument through which governments can crack down opposition groups. Among states “suspected” of these practices there is Tajikistan. The country suffers hundreds of young in the forces of the Caliphate and recently even one of the most influential military officials, Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov, abandoned institutional ranks to join ISIS. Tajik President Emomali Rahmon described the Islamic State “the 21st century plague” and started a crackdown on Islamic groups highly criticized, starting speculations about the real nature of the governmental intentions. Many suspect, in fact, that some measures – like the disbandment of the opposition movement Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan, the ban of veil for women and the strong invitation for the men to shave their beard – have little to do with security issue.

In Uzbekistan, where President Karimov is conducting a years-long war against terrorism, government decided to implement new anti-terrorist measures.

Kazakhstan, instead, has chosen another path. Recently, Astana declared to have allocated more resources for security apparatus, but there is more. Contrary to the other Central Asians republics, Astana has taken up the idea of a regional cooperation to this issue. Speaking to the 70th UN General Assembly last September, President Nursultan Nazarbayev advanced a proposal (previously presented in SCO summit in Ufa) for the creation of an “anti-terrorist global network” under the aegis of the United Nations and with the involvement of regional defense structures, like CSTO. Kazakh President underlined that global threats requires global answers, stressing the necessity to re-unite the different alliances constituted in order to coordinate them. A vision – this – that brings Russia and Kazakhstan even closer on security issue. Another element to underline about Kazakh strategy is the role conceded in its anti-terrorism law to social and cultural factors, in order to prevent the spread of religious radicalism and extremism. Only years to come will say if this particular approach will give its results.

The necessity of a common answer should start also by the consideration that the Eurasian one presents itself as an increasingly significant key region. The attention toward Central Asians states is determined by their relevance as raw materials suppliers, their strategic transit routes and importance for the political stability: single States’ instability – due to the rise of domestic radical groups or to the return of foreign fighters – can produce an impact on the whole area and even on Russia and China.

At the same time, is necessary a thought-out look about the real entity of the issue. Many reports indicate that Central Asians states are lesser in danger than other regions’ countries. According to the 2015 “Global Terrorism Index” Central Asia is less in danger than Europe. Eurasian states have “good performances” not only in respect of the most troubled nations, but even of their more influential neighbors, Russia and China. The five former Soviet Central Asian states have been included in the “lowest impact of terrorism” and “no impact” categories, ranging from 83rd rank (of 162 countries classified) of Kazakhstan to the last position of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

This standing can result exaggerated, especially in a phase in which terrorism is living a rising trend, but it can help to value the relative stability of these countries. Moreover, it can help in understanding that disproportionate reactions can lead to counterproductive effects in medium-long term. In some cases, restrictions and repressions seems to respond to necessities of internal politics. The real risk is that such measures might contribute to an increasing expansion of radicalism and dissatisfaction with the institutions. Poverty, social and cultural marginalization, ethnic discriminations, lack of efficient politics and the increasing economic difficulties in these states are among other factors able to strengthen radical groups beyond the “religious ideology”.

The answer can’t include only security aspects, because fundamentalism can grow for economic, social and cultural reasons. In this regard, the aforementioned Kazakh law on anti-terrorism, with its comprehensive attitude toward the issue, could represent a viable approach in the fight against religious extremism and radicalism. Only time, however, can say if this kind of solution can work and if Central Asia can prevent the rise of terrorism and instability.

*Alessandro Lundini, Ricercatore Associato – Programma “Eurasia” IsAG – Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie Piazza dei Navigatori, 22 – 00147 Roma http://www.istituto-geopolitica.eu

Best known for his brutal repression of critics, Egyptian-general-turned-president Abdel Fattah al Sisi has invited protesting militant anti-government soccer fans to investigate a 2012 politically loaded soccer brawl in which 72 supporters of storied Cairo club Al Ahli SC died.

Mr. Al Sisi’s invitation contrasted starkly with Al Ahli’s response to the protest on the fourth anniversary of the worst incident in Egyptian sporting history by Ultras Ahlawy, the club’s militant supporters who played a key role in the toppling in 2011 of president Hosni Mubarak and protests against Mr. Al Sisi after he came to power in a military coup in 2013.

Anticipating a harsh government response to the protest, Al Ahli denounced the ultras for using the commemoration of the incident on the club’s ground to demand that Mr. Al Sisi’s predecessor, Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who led Egypt as head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) immediately after the fall of Mr. Mubarak, be held accountable for the death of their comrades. The cub also banned fans from attending the club’s training sessions

The brawl in the Suez Canal city of Port Said occurred on Mr. Tantawi’s watch. The ultras believe that government-hired thugs caused a stampede in the stadium and beat Al Ahli supporters to death with security forces standing aside and the doors locked from the outside.

An appeals court has sentenced 11 people to death and more than a dozen others to lengthy prison terms on charges of having been responsible for the brawl.

Mr. Al Sisi issued his invitation in a phone call to a popular television program which he said he was making to address the ultras. He said the ultras should appoint ten of their members to form a committee that would be able to investigate the incident. The president did not elaborate on what kind of access the committee would have or on what ground rules it would operate.

It was also not clear what prompted Mr. Al Sisi’s invitation but state-owned Al Ahram newspaper noted in its coverage of the president’s remarks that “many disgruntled youths are unhappy with what they deem heavy-handed practices by security forces. Scores of Islamist, liberal and secular activists have been jailed since Sisi was elected as president in June 2014. Many fell foul of a restrictive protest law as Egypt’s interior ministry cracked down on dissent,” the newspaper said.

Mr. Al Sisi struck a conciliatory tone by admitting that “it’s us who are not able to properly communicate with them (disgruntled youths). We are the ones who are unable to find common ground. I’m exerting lots of efforts in this matter and I’m aware that I will need time. Finding the balance between security measures and human rights is a sensitive and delicate issue which needs lots of efforts,” he said.

Members of various ultras groups, including Ultras Ahlawy, formed the backbone of the student protests against Mr. Al Sisi that have petered out as a result of arrests, expulsions from universities and the turning of universities into security force-controlled fortresses.

A Cairo court last month sentenced 15 supporters of the Ultras White Knights (UWK), the militant support group of Al Ahli arch rival Al Zamalek SC, to five years in prison with hard labour for allegedly attempting to assassinate the club’s controversial president, Mortada Mansour.

Mr. Mansour’s already strained relations with his fan base deteriorated further when he as a newly elected member of parliament he last month changed the words of the official oath to swearing to respect “articles of the constitution” rather than the constitution itself because its pre-amble honoured the 2011 popular revolt.

“25 January brought the Muslim Brotherhood and 30 June brought Sisi – whose side are you on?” Mr. Mansour asked in a television interview after the incident. The 2011 popular revolt erupted on January 25; mass anti-Brotherhood protests on 13 June 2013 paved the way for Mr. Al Sisi’s coup.

While the ultras have yet to respond to Mr. Al Sisi’s invitation, they are unlikely to take him up on his offer without guarantees that any investigation will be fully independent and have full access. The ultras are likely to further use the invitation and Mr. Al Sisi’s lowering of his armour to press for a re-opening of stadia to the public.

Fans have largely been banned from attending league matches for much of the last five years. An attempt a year ago to partially lift the ban failed when security forces killed 20 supporters of Zamalek who had been trying to get into a stadium for which a limited number of tickets had been made available.

The ultras have insisted that their past attendance of training sessions and youth handball and soccer matches without incident proved that there was no basis for the closure of the stadia.

In his phone call to the television station, Mr. Al Sisi suggested the investigation because “In incidents involving huge masses, many facts get lost. It’s always difficult to determine the truth behind what happened…. I call on the Ultras to select 10 of their members whom they trust to be part of a committee to look into all the details concerning this case and determine what more can be done,” Mr. Al Sisi said.

Mr. Al Sisi’s invitation came at a time that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are considering reducing substantial funding because of the president’s poor performance economically, emerging differences in Saudi and Egyptian attitudes towards the Muslim Brotherhood, and differences over Syria.

The ultras-backed student groups have close ties to youth groups of the Brotherhood that Mr. Al Sisi sees as the source of all of Egypt’s problem. Saudi King Salman since coming to power has cautiously moved away from his predecessor’s crackdown on the Brotherhood.