Meet the Press host Chuck Todd to Trump campaign manager Paul J. Manafort:

“What was your role in the Republican platform’s call for bombing North Korea?”

Manafort to Todd: “I had none.”

What’s the takeaway from this hypothetical conversation? Manafort validated Todd’s assertion that there is a plan for bombing, while claiming to have had no part in it. But the facts show there never was any such plan in the first place. Todd asked a trick question, and Manafort fell for it.

That pseudo-conversation illustrates what just happened in real life.

The subject is not North Korea, but Ukraine and the recent Clinton allegations that Trump is in cahoots with Vladimir Putin.

Huffington Post ran the headline, “Trump Pushed for GOP to Change Ukraine Position.” This supports the ongoing Clinton suggestion that Trump is tainted by his alleged connections with Vladimir Putin. HuffPost went on to say, “The pro-Russia change was the only party platform tweak the Trump camp cared about, sources say.”

By the way, I told Huffington Post that I could find no primary source for the issues their story raises, and asked if they have one. There was no immediate response.

Now to the true-life interaction between Manafort and Todd: Sunday morning, July 31, Manafort appeared with Todd on Meet the Press. Todd brought up the platform issue of sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine.

He asked, “How much influence did you have on changing that language?”

Manafort answered, “I had none.”

Bingo. That’s the same trick from the North Korea analogy. It’s almost like the old “when did you stop beating your wife?” joke question. Todd set up a false premise and cast an aspersion of Manafort’s complicity.

But, instead of denying the legitimacy of the premise, Manafort’s first response was to deny his culpability. In doing so, he validated the false premise.

Manafort added, “In fact I didn’t even hear about it until after our convention was over.” Again, another validation of the false premise.

What Manafort should have told Todd right off the bat is: “There was no such change in the platform.”

This Meet the Press exchange is covered in an August 1 TMP story titled “Changed GOP Platform on Ukraine.” While this article piles-on Manafort over Todd’s allegations, it also, perhaps unwittingly, sabotage’s the Todd-TMP premise of a platform change.

TMP references a July 18 Washington Post article by Josh Rogin as its source, and summarizes:

“When a platform committee member offered an amendment to the platform that called for supporting Ukraine, members of the Trump campaign who were not members of the committee jumped in to edit the amendment, Rogin reported. They stripped language from the amendment saying the U.S. should help Ukraine by “providing lethal defensive weapons” and instead wrote that America should offer “appropriate assistance.”

Do you see the flaw in the Todd-TMP argument? An amendment was offered to inject a call for sending lethal weaponry. Trump didn’t have the platform changed. It didn’t call for lethal weapons in the first place. Someone else tried and failed to make a change.

What’s more, it seems like the Trump camp worked to strike up a compromise instead of outright defeating the proposed amendment.

Based on the TMP report it sounds like the amendment would politically mandate sending deadly weapons. The compromise amendment calls for offering “appropriate assistance.” Logically if sending lethal weaponry should show itself as appropriate, it would be permissible.

The original proposal was to send the weapons whether they were appropriate or not at any given time. What a dangerous condition that would have created. Thank goodness a compromise was worked out.

Manafort is a sharp, experienced guy. But he’s sure blowing it when it comes to the Russia issue.

Actually Manafort is Paul J. Manafort, Jr. He grew up in the city where I live. I knew his late father. He was a popular former mayor. We have a street named after him, “Paul Manafort Drive.” I can remember sitting with the senior Manafort one presidential election night years ago in front of a TV. “PJ” had tipped him off to the time when he would be speaking on a national broadcast network. Paul Sr. was proudly awaiting the appearance of PJ.

I think it’s sad to see that PJ is unsuccessfully handling the challenges the Clinton campaign are throwing him over Russia. Perhaps Manafort has poor staff support in this area.

Nonetheless we still see the specious Clinton allegations, Todd’s successful attempt to put Manafort in a compromised position, and also TMP’s me-too article. Lies, lies, lies, everwhere lies.

The Trump team seems to be the only truthful player here. Yet Trump is getting his clock cleaned over Russia.

This Clinton gamesmanship continues to push the US-Russia relationship dangerously toward the brink. I think the most effective way to halt that nonsense is to turn the issue back around on Clinton. That should be done. It can be done. But no one’s doing it. Alas.

By Manoj Joshi

FiveThirtyEight, America’s best-known poll forecaster, has predicted that Donald Trump has a 50.1 percent chance of winning the US presidency.

It is time to suspend disbelief and assess just what a Trump presidency could mean for the world and India.

Trump has divided the US electorate down the middle. He has been attacked for his erratic ways, racism, and questionable business practices.

Yet, he bested the powerful Republican establishment to become the party nominee for the presidential elections.

What forces have carried Donald Trump to this stage? Win or lose, they will be around in the US over the coming decade.

Most noticeable is the feeling among large sections of the people that the American establishment has colluded with the rich in other countries to impoverish the average American.

This has led to a chronic, growing inequality in the US and an exacerbation of the race issue.

Globally, instead of benefiting from the rise of East Asia, the US has spent a fortune in wars in the Middle East, and is now witnessing the destabilisation of its key ally, Europe, by Islamist terrorism and unchecked migration.

Meanwhile China expands its military and economic capacity and could challenge the US, first in East Asia, and then possibly the world.

Assuming Trump does not quite live out his persona as POTUS, and that he is a person of reasonable intelligence, it is possible to get a reasonable idea of how he will be different.

A lot will depend on the outcome of the Congressional elections, because while the Congress cannot make policy, it has the capacity to obstruct a President’s agenda just as has happened in the case of Barack Obama.

Perhaps the most significant shift will be in the way the US engages the world.

The US played a crucial role in setting up the UN, the international monetary and trading system, non-proliferation, arms control, and a host of international agreements that bind the world.

It shaped a global environment in which most states believed that following the rules was in their self-interest, and in turn the US paid the primary cost of policing that system.

Now, Trump wants out. Many Americans have spoken of free-loading allies, but for Trump it has been an obsession.

His world will be much more transactional, where say in the area of security, Europe, Japan and the Middle Eastern allies of the US will be asked to cough up their contributions.

Donald Trump on the late Humayun Khan, US Army Captain, who was killed in Iraq in 2004 | Source: Twitter

His words and deeds suggest that he will seek to restore the geo-political balance which has been skewed by the Western policy on Ukraine, which has sent Russia into the arms of China.

He will take a tough stand on Islamism, with implications for the Gulf monarchies.

On the matter of trade, the horse has already bolted. Trump has attacked Mexico and NAFTA, but in recent year many US analysts have averred that the US gave China a free ride in the trading system and by cleverly under-valuing its currency, Beijing sucked away US industries and jobs.

There is little they can do to reverse this; China has unstoppable momentum.

Trump is committed to opposing the brahmastra of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), but he is bound to a tough-line on China on trade and currency issues.

India does not figure in Trump’s Manichean worldview — which is for the good. India simply does not impact on the US to the extent that Russia, Europe or China do.

IPR and job outsourcing issues are there. But they are minor in the larger scale of problems that the US must tackle to reduce its debt, reform its tax laws, rewrite trading agreements and get on to the path of growth which also benefits the average person.

Whether it is in tackling China, Islamism, or the Russian rift, Trump’s policies will benefit India.

However, New Delhi will also be on that transactional framework where it will be asked what it has on offer to merit the US’s friendship — and we cannot rule out an American decision to knock heads on issues like Kashmir.

Every US President since the Cold War have been committed to maintaining the American global hegemony.

Trump and his supporters believe that their harsh agenda is the necessary medicine for the US and the world, to save them — and in the process retain America’s number one status.

This article originally appeared in Mail Today.

In the run-up to the Presidential elections in the US, a number of veterans’ nam

es have come to be associated with both the Presidential Nominees; General Michael Hayden, former CIA and NSA Director has endorsed Donald Trump, as has Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former DIA Director. Similarly, Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander was briefly being considered as Hillary Clinton’s running mate. As the armed forces were seemingly getting embroiled in the political fight, the current Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford wrote a powerful article stressing on the need for the armed forces to stay away from the melee and not to politicise the military.

In his article, General Dunford reminded his men to conduct themselves in a manner to reassure the next administration of being served by an apolitical military, while continuing to exercise their right to vote for the candidate they chose, yet guard against the institution being politicised by way of their conduct in public. He stressed upon the long American history of an apolitical military upholding the principle of civilian control, starting from General George Washington resigning his commission. In more recent times, General Dwight D Eisenhower has also served as the President of the US, after having served his country as Army Chief of Staff and Supreme Allied Commander NATO, retiring in 1952 before running for President.

The Indian armed forces have long prided themselves for being apolitical, even to a fault- and continue to remain subservient to the elected representatives of the people, under the principle of civilian control. Yet many events force us to scrutinize this under a lens. Historically, controversy has dogged the armed forces, sometimes bordering on endangering national security.

Whether it was General Thimayya’s controversial resignation as Chief of Army Staff due his differences with Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon which was withdrawn later with the Prime Minister’s intervention, or Lieutenant General BM Kaul’s appointment as the Corps Commander owing his proximity to Prime Minister Nehru and held responsible for the Indian debacle in the 1962 Sino- Indian War, the armed forces are no strangers to interference by the political hierarchy. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat who had himself sought redress by the courts in his appointment as Fleet Commander, was later sacked by the Defence Minister George Fernandes for allegedly showing ‘defiance of civilian authority’.

Then there is the case of General VK Singh’s age issue which put him at loggerheads with the government of the day. Even the ongoing tussle between the present Chief of Army Staff General Dalbir Singh with the officer slated to be the next Chief, Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi, ostensibly due to the present incumbent being from the Infantry and the next one from the Armoured Corps, has begun to take political overtones. In the bargain an officer of known calibre and professional acumen, Lieutenant General DRN Soni (also from the Armoured Corps) has become the object of machinations to keep him from Army Commander appointment.

Amidst all the brouhaha one fact remains as an undercurrent; the growing politicisation of the armed forces. The veracity of this is ascertained by the highly uninspiring leadership at the top levels of the military hierarchy; more and more one hears rumbles from the rank and file about the senior leadership failing to provide motivation to their troops. This is also amply demonstrated by the recent dissatisfaction among the armed forces with regard to their pay and status. It was left to the veterans to take up the issue with the government and led to a string of emotionally charged scenes with the veterans going so far as returning the medals awarded to them for their service to the nation. Does this call for an introspection? What further compounds it is the organizational ethos which stifles criticism at lower levels.

In his 1970 book, “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States”, Albert O Hirschmann has argued that voice can be made the mechanism of feedback for an organization. He says that criticism is a healthy thing and to encourage it means to enhance growth prospects. Whereas limiting criticism both overtly or by covert means, often expressed as culture or innuendo, would limit the ability to present alternate viewpoints or dissent. This is harmful to the organizational growth in the long run. This is the malaise that seems to be hurting the Indian armed forces. And it stems from this growing politicisation at the senior leadership levels.

That it is harmful in other and more diverse ways can be understood by the importance given to civil- military relations in a democracy. The principle of civilian control is underlined by the fact that the civilian leadership depends heavily on the inputs it receives from its military advisors. The quality of this advice depends on the integrity of the decision making and execution processes. This very reliance is undermined by the lack of a moral dimension which is a natural fallout of allowing political interference in the armed forces. Lieutenant General James Dubrik, US Army has commented on the moral dimension of strategic competence wherein he stresses upon the quality and integrity of senior military ranks as a precursor to the decisions taken at strategic level by the civilian leadership.

Writing about the US army, (but what certainly seems to be apt for the Indian armed forces as well) he further advocates the empowerment of junior leadership, but rightfully also points out that the army has not taught and reinforced seniors leaders who empower. In one thesis thus, he brings out the two dimensions imperative to healthy civil- military relations; namely, looking at inward growth and having an upright moral character to outward competence. (Closer home, seminal work in this field has been done by Anit Mukherjee, currently a Professor with the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Singapore, and formerly an officer of the Indian Army).

If the US example is anything to go by, the DePuy reforms in the 1970s hefted substantial responsibility for adding professionalism to a force which was humiliated post Vietnam and faced growing opprobrium back home. It tackled not only issues related to training and administration, but delved deeper in to the experiential and creative realm, and helped put in place structures designed to identify, nurture and advance the best for future generations of leadership. Most of the contemporary generalship of the US owe their careers to this tumultuous period. However, this very senior leadership is now calling for yet another set of reforms to cater to the generational shift in the past 40 odd years since the DePuy reforms.

Is it time for the Indian armed forces also to look inward and institute a mechanism more in keeping with the paradigm shift that has taken place amidst us? The growing aspirations (at all levels) will further compound the problem of politicisation both from within and without. It appears critical to reform and indeed vital to the health of the armed forces. In the long run, it would only enable better civil- military relations and strengthen the foundations of democracy. De-linking the military from politics is crucial to this aim. It may serve the armed forces hierarchy well to remember the following words by General Joseph Dunford:

“As military professionals our most important asset is the trust and credibility with the (American) people. While we must safeguard our professional integrity, extra vigilance is required during any political transition”.

*Vishakha Amitabh Hoskote, MPHIL, MA (International Relations, Political Science, Development

By Amity Saha*

Turkey, a country overlapping Eastern Europe and Western Asia, is having an event-filled year in 2016; one which has seen two general elections, overthrowing of a Prime Minister, finally a wave of attacks liable on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Kurdish militants. Now, a military coup attempt was seen when a section of the Turkish Armed Force claimed that they have totally taken over the administration of the country to re-establish the constitutional order, human rights and freedom, rule of law and general security. This attempted Turkish military coup however, tumbled in the early hours of July 15, 2016, after crowds responded President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s call to take to the streets to backing him.

While the coup had failed by the morning of July 16, the circumstances surrounding it continue to project uncertainty. But, this is not the first time that Turkey’s military or some military officials have done something like this. In fact, in 1960, the military had ousted Turkey’s civilian government about four different times. Turkey, a NATO member state, is a crucial companion in U.S.-led efforts to overthrow Da’esh which is currently controlling regions in Syria and Iraq. Turkey has permitted American jets to use its Incirlik air base to fly missions against these extremists.

The formation of the modern Republic of Turkey in 1923 occurred after the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922) that was led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his colleagues in Anatolia. Turks have an undefined relationship with their military.The Turkish military is shrouded in the tradition of sacrifice, but also has a rather unpleasant past of being figure of subjugation. Military leaders in the earlier coups had worked with the support of Turks who saw them as protectors from chaos and corruption. But, then again, their cruelty was often demonstrated.

The Prime Minister and key ministers were executed in the 1960 military takeover in Turkey. Many cases of disappearance and extrajudicial killings were reported in 1980 when another coup took place. At the same time, this is also true that the military enjoys reverence and vast economic resources in Turkey. In fact, being in the military in Turkey is quite like a rite of passage for almost all men. Soldiers died in fighting with Kurdish rebels are bigheartedly greeted as martyrs of the country.

However, this time the attempted coup turned out to be quite baffling. It seemed to have been very poorly planned. While most of the TV channels were operating well enough, there were also no plots to take Erdogan in.

President Erdogan is blaming the coup on a Gulenist faction within the military. Even previously the President had accused Fethullah Gulen of running a parallel state within the state. Gulen is a US-based former Imam who was once connected to Erdogan. Gulen has a fair number of supporters in the military. The military may be Gulen’s last upholder of strength in Turkey since support from other branches of the government such as the police, judiciary, and media have already been expunged. While it is not clear as to who was behind the coup, it is sure that the government will use this as an opportunity to launch an even bigger attack on the Gulen movement.

Another theory that is doing rounds in Turkey is that this was a coup staged by Erdogan himself, designed to pave way for his dictatorship. But this doesn’t seem to be a reasonable hypothesis especially as Erdogan was taking initiatives with Russia and Israel to strengthen the economy. Everyone knows that even a failed coup would cause much destruction to the economy. Already, Lira, the Turkish currency, has plunged 5 per cent — its biggest fall since 2008 with the muddled scenes of rebel soldiers taking to the streets of Istanbul and Ankara on the very first moment of Friday, 15 July, when the coup was staged.

So if we want to identify the causes behind this sudden coup, what can be said about them? Many can say economic unrest, pressure from refugees etc. are the reasons behind this. But, the reality does not coincide with these speculations. Some kind of internal power struggle between unidentified actors might have triggered the coup.

What type of changes will this coup convey? It is pretty much clear that this will open the way for total domination of Turkish politics by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The constitutional changes he wants to make will be much easier for him to bring about than ever before. That will make him essentially the one and only politician in the country who will get to call the shots. Either way, the balance of the democratic future has been destabilized in Turkey.

*Amity Saha is a Research Assistant at Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs (BILIA). She can be reached at: meetee88@gmail.com

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On July 24, 2016, after spending 287 days in Singha Durbar (Lion’s Palace), the seat of Nepal’s government as Prime Minister, KP Sharma Oli resigned from his post minutes before the Parliament was to vote on a no-confidence motion he was likely to lose. Consequently, on July 25, 2016, President Bidya Devi Bhandari asked the political parties to elect a new Prime Minister and form a government on the basis of political consensus within seven days.

Earlier, on July 22, 2016, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Chairperson of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Centre) and also a major coalition partner with 82 seats in the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML)-led coalition government, tabled a no-confidence motion in Parliament against Prime Minister Oli. Bimalendra Nidhi, a central-level leader of the Nepali Congress (NC), the largest opposition party with 206 seats, seconded the no-confidence motion tabled by Dahal. The Parliament also rejected three key Bills – the Finance Bill, the Bill to Raise Domestic Debt and the Loan and Guarantee Bill – tabled by the incumbent government right before Dahal tabled the no-confidence motion against the incumbent Prime Minister. Speaker Onsari Gharti Magar allotted three days for debate on the no-confidence motion and the motion was to be put to vote on July 24, 2016.

Prior to this, on July 12, 2016, CPN-Maoist Center withdrew its support from the incumbent government saying that the CPN-UML was reluctant to implement the gentlemen’s agreement and the nine-point agreement made with it on May 5, 2016. In a letter addressed to the Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, CPN-Maoist Centre Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal said:

“Our party saw the need for national consensus to implement the new statute, complete the remaining tasks of peace process along with the transitional justice, resolve the issues raised by Madhesis, Janajatis and Tharus, and provide relief to the people and carry out reconstruction of the country in the wake of the last year’s devastating earthquake. And the spirit of nine-point agreement that the Maoist party and CPN-UML forged in May was also national consensus. But, as the leadership of the existing government was not ready to implement the nine-point agreement and the three-point gentlemen’s agreement, it would be politically inappropriate for our party to remain in this government. Thus, we withdraw our support from this government now.”

According to the gentleman’s agreement reached between Dahal and Oli, the latter would let Dahal take over government’s reins after the tabling of the fiscal budget. And, the nine-point agreement provided blanket amnesty for human rights abusers over the decade-long Maoist insurgency in order to save the Maoist leaders from being implicated in war crimes. But, when Oli refused to step down even after the passage of the budget, the Maoists had no option but to rethink their support.

Expectedly, a day after the CPN-Maoist Center withdrew its support to CPN-UML-led government, the main opposition party NC, during its Central Working Committee meeting held at the Nuptse Hall in the Parliament building on July 13, 2016, decided to lend support to Dahal as the new Prime Minister. The meeting also endorsed a seven-point agreement that the party President, Sher Bahadur Deuba, forged with CPN-Maoist Center Chairman Dahal to build a new coalition Government. As per an understanding between the two leaders, Dahal would lead the coalition Government for now, and Deuba would later succeed him after 10 months.

Remarkably, the NC, CPN-Maoist Center and CPN (United) on July 13, 2016, registered a vote of no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Oli at the Parliament. The motion signed by CPN-Maoist Center Chairman Dahal, on behalf of 284 Member of Parliaments (MPs) out of 598 MPs in the Parliament, stated that they registered the motion after Prime Minister Oli did not clear the way to form the new Government even after the Oli-led Government was turned into a minority one. Consequently, Speaker Onsari Gharti Magar on July 15, 2016, postponed Parliament meeting till July 21, 2016, so as to first allow a debate on no-confidence motion moved by the NC and CPN-Maoist Center.

Separately, seeking support for passing no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Oli and taking part in the new government, both the NC and the CPN-Maoist Center leaders had approached the agitating parties of United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF). Finally, on July 13, 2016, following a joint request from NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba and CPN-Maoist Center Chairman Dahal, 19 MPs from the UDMF signed on the no-confidence motion. On the same day, Federal Alliance, an alliance of 30 ethnic and Madhesi parties formed on July 31, 2015, said that it will also help the NC and CPN-Maoist Centre to unseat the CPN-UML-led coalition Government. There are about four dozen lawmakers in the Federal Alliance.

Meanwhile, a meeting of the ruling parties, Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal (RPP-N), Madhesi People’s Right Forum-Democratic (MPRF-D), Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and some other smaller parties, held in Kathmandu on July 17, 2016, decided not to allow a discussion on the no-confidence motion on July 21 without allowing a debate on the three budget related bills first. Further, Prime Minister Oli on July 19, 2016, urged Speaker Onsari Gharti Magar to allow a debate on the three budget related bills before the discussion over the no-confidence motion takes place at the Parliament.

Consequently, as a part of a last ditch effort to forge consensus among the parties, Speaker Magar held a meeting with Prime Minister Oli, Dahal and NC President Sher Bahadur at the office of the Speaker in Singha Durbar, Kathmandu on July 21, 2016. Remarkably, breaking the week-long stalemate, the major parties including the CPN-UML, NC and CPN-Maoist Centre on July 22, 2016, agreed to discuss and endorse three pending bills related to the annual budget before discussions on the no-confidence vote. The major parties were at odds over what to put first – a no-confidence motion filed against the incumbent government or three budget bills – in discussion at the Parliament. While the CPN-UML had wanted to discuss the budget bills first before facing the no-confidence vote filed against the Government, the NC and the CPN-Maoist Center said the no-confidence motion should be discussed and put to vote first before any other business.

In fact, since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1990, unstable politics, frequent ruptures of political parties and the all-too-frequent change of government have plagued Nepal which has seen 23 government changes in 26 years. Although, a government has the mandate to rule for five years and thus bring long-term plans and policies, in Nepal the average age of government is a year at most, which means half baked plans, ill-executed policies, and way too many changes in government working styles.

Caught in the struggle between power hungry politicians and a highly unstable democratic system, the Nepalese youth feel trapped and helpless. Nepal has been in a state of political crisis for many years, but people were hopeful that it would eventually sort itself out and there would be some political stability and economic growth.

*Dr. S. Binodkumar Singh is a Research Associate at the Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi. He can be reached at: salambksingh@yahoo.co.in

Last Friday saw the release of a bombshell jobs report, with headlines exclaiming that the US economy added over 250,000 jobs in July, far in excess of any forecasts. The reality was far more grim. Those “jobs” weren’t actually created by businesses – they were created by the statisticians who compiled the numbers, through the process of “seasonal adjustment.” That’s a bit of statistical magic that the government likes to pull out of its hat when the real data isn’t very flattering. It’s done with GDP, it’s done with job numbers, and similar manipulation is done with government inflation figures to keep them lower than actual price increases. In reality there are a million fewer people with jobs this month than last month, but the magic of seasonal adjustment turns that into a gain of 255,000.

Delving further into the jobs report, we see that many of the jobs that were supposedly created were jobs in government and health care. Government jobs, of course, are paid for by siphoning money away from taxpayers. And health care jobs are increasingly created solely because of the ever-growing mandates of Obamacare. Other major sources of job growth were temp jobs and leisure & hospitality (i.e. waiters and bartenders). These aren’t long-lasting jobs that will contribute to economic growth, they are mostly just jobs that cater to the tastes of the well-to-do who continue to benefit from the Federal Reserve’s easy monetary policy.

As New York, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and other political and financial hubs continue to benefit from trillions of dollars of debt-financed government spending and the trillions more dollars the Federal Reserve has created from nothing, the politicians, lobbyists, and bankers who receive that money demand ever more exotic food, drink, and entertainment. The jobs that arise to satisfy that demand, we are supposed to believe, are the backbone of the job market “recovery.” Yeah, right.

Eight years after the worst part of the last financial crisis, the US economy still has not fully recovered. The number of people employed may have finally begun to grow past its pre-crisis peak but the quality of jobs has deteriorated, and the number of people who are still looking for jobs or who have even given up looking for jobs and dropped out of the labor force still numbers in the millions and shows no signs of shrinking. Quantitative easing, zero or negative interest rates, and other inflationary central bank policies cannot lead to lasting job creation or economic growth. Try telling that to the central bankers, though. They only care about aggregate numbers, not what is actually behind those aggregates. A castle built of sand is the same to them as a castle built of stone.

Until the notion that wealth and prosperity can come from a printing press is eradicated from the thinking of policymakers, economies around the world will remained mired in this malaise. Jobs are created by meeting consumer demand. If you provide the goods and services that customers want at the price they want, your business will grow, jobs will be created, and everyone in society will be better off.

If, on the other hand, jobs are created through government money creation and heavily protectionist laws and regulations, those jobs will not meet the needs of consumers, will add nothing to productivity, and ultimately will not last. When politicians pursue policies that incentivize jobs like the latter to those of the former, economic stagnation is the unfortunate but predictable result.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Preventing the extinction of gorillas, rhinoceroses, elephants, lions, tigers, wolves, bears and the world’s other largest mammals will require bold political action and financial commitments from nations worldwide. In an article in the journal BioScience, 43 wildlife experts write that without immediate changes, many of the Earth’s most iconic species will be lost.

“The loss of these magnificent animals would be a tremendous tragedy,” said Blaire Van Valkenburgh, a UCLA professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, and one of the article’s co-authors. “They are all that is left of a once much more diverse megafauna that populated the planet only 12,000 years ago. And more importantly, we have only just begun to understand the important roles they play in maintaining healthy ecosystems.”

Among the most serious threats to endangered animals are illegal hunting, deforestation, habitat loss, expansion of livestock and agriculture into wildlife areas, and human population growth, they write.

The scientists, who represent six continents, write that humans have “an abiding moral obligation to protect the Earth’s megafauna,” or large mammals. “We must not go quietly into this impoverished future.”

In addition to their significance to ecosystems, animals such as tigers and elephants attract tourists and their money to parts of the world that have few alternative sources of income, said Van Valkenburgh, who holds the Donald R. Dickey chair in vertebrate biology in the UCLA College.

“This paper is a call for action at all levels, local to global, to halt the rapid decline of the megafauna,” she said.

The paper reports that 59 percent of the largest carnivores and 60 percent of the largest herbivores have been classified as threatened with extinction, and that the situation is especially severe in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, where the greatest diversity of extant megafauna live.

William Ripple, the paper’s lead author, a distinguished professor of ecology in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, said the animals’ declines are occurring rapidly.

“The more I look at the trends facing the world’s largest terrestrial mammals, the more concerned I am we could lose these animals just as science is discovering how important they are to ecosystems and to the services they provide to people,” he said.

The scientists call for comprehensive action, including expanding habitats for the animals and changing conservation policy. The paper notes that some conservation initiatives have been successful and that, if measures are taken now, it may still be possible to rescue these animals from extinction.

In the aftermath of the July 15th failed military coup in Turkey, which has resulted in extensive purge of the Turkish military apparatuses, the embattled President Erdogan has openly accused the US of complicity in the coup and brushing aside the US officials’ criticisms of his post-coup purges. Without doubt, the US-Turkish relations have been set back as a result of Ankara’s suspicion of Washington’s role in masterminding the coup, e.g., by dispersing US dollar among the coup-makers, in light of US top officials’ failure to condemn the coup while it was in progress.

In turn, this raises new questions about the US’s approach toward Turkey, a NATO member state that was on the verge of a major U-turn on its Syria policy on the eve of the coup, which has now been seemingly stopped. Contextualizing the failed coup is thus important, given the prior Erdogan’s sacking of Prime Minister Davutoglu in May, 2016, as a prelude for a political transition on Damascus potentiating a turnaround from the failed attempt to dislodge Bashar al-Assad with the help of Saudi-backed rebels; the latter are now so emboldened that for the first time they have convened an open summit in Ankara, forming a new coalition, and basking in the new vulnerabilities of the Turkish government presently consumed by the domestic priorities.

Although the US has adamantly denied any role in the coup and President Obama has stood behind a tall wall of denial, there is a growing consensus in Turkey and elsewhere in the Middle East that the US engineered the coup, not so much to dethrone but rather to weaken Erdogan and to put a qualitative brake on his omnibus of new Syrian policy.

A manna from heaven for the Syrian rebels, the coup has in a certain sense paralyzed Ankara’s ability to dictate to them, thus adding to Turkey’s present national security woes. For sure, the Syrian rebels and terrorists operating in Syria have a much easier time to cause mischief inside Turkey, a trump card against Ankara that can ill-afford new waves of terrorist attacks. Should Erdogan insist on a fresh course of detente with Damascus, it is a fair bet that Turkey will be hit with more deadly terrorist attacks in reprisal. In a sense, the failed coup has tied Erdogan’s hands on Syria, weakening the central government and forcing Erdogan into a new survival mode that may exact exorbitant prices in terms of an independent Turkish foreign policy.

With respect to Saudi Arabia, the other major stakeholder in the Syrian conflict, also indirectly accused of playing a role in the failed coup, the real value of the post-coup “disciplining” Erdogan back in the line on Syria may have been worth the risk of causing serious thorns in Turkish-Saudi relations. How far Mr. Erdogan will turn away from the US and its allies in the region will be somewhat more apparent after the much-anticipated Erdogan-Putin meeting on August 9th, interpreted by some media pundits in the west as a sign of a Turkish re-orientation. But this might be an exaggeration and, perhaps, “a new balanced” approach is more appropriate characterization of Turkey’s post-coup foreign policy. If Erdogan goes too far in Moscow’s direction, then the US and its allies will retaliate by using their proxies to cause trouble for Turkey, which is why Mr. Erdogan needs to be careful in avoiding the impression of having shifted alliance as a result of the (US-backed) coup. After all, Kurdish insurgency is one of Turkey’s main headaches today, which can be made much worse if the US decides to use the “Kurdish card” against Ankara. Nonetheless, the normalization of Turkish-Russian relations is in the national interests of both countries and, bottom line, the US and NATO can ultimately ill-afford a Turkey in chaos, which puts premium on this anti-Ankara maneuvers.

Erdogan is fully cognizant of NATO’s priorities and problems, which he in turn can exploit to his advantage. In other words, it is simply wrong to assume that Erdogan is empty-handed and is in a reactive mode. Rather, the “heavenly blessing” of the coup has brought certain dividends as well, one of which is to force a fresh re-thinking of Turkey’s long-term interests and its net of friends and enemies in the region and beyond.

Dozens of anti-government protesters have been killed and arrested by government authorities amid ongoing unrest in Ethiopia. For months, hundreds of thousands of protestors from Ethiopia’s largest ethnic groups have rallied to protest political marginalization and systematic persecution by the government. In June, a 61-page human rights report was released by Human Rights Watch, condemning the Ethiopian government’s heavy-handed response to the protests. According to the report, Such a Brutal Crackdown: Killings and Arrests in Response to Ethiopia’s Oromo Protests, during the widespread protests, largely arising within Oromia (but now extending to other regions), Ethiopian security forces have resorted to excessive and unnecessary lethal force and mass arrests, engaged in the harsh, ruthless mistreatment of those in detention, and restricted access to information. Estimates suggest that over 400 protesters or others had been killed by security forces, while tens of thousands more have been arrested, figures that will now have risen significantly.

Corruption and poor governance remain deeply embedded within Ethiopia’s socio-political structure, and the country consistently scores extremely poorly on a range of international governance indicators. The Ethiopian government has been consistently criticized by an array of international rights groups for its broad range of human rights abuses including its harsh repression of minorities and journalists, press censorship, draconian anti-terror laws that are utilized to silence all forms of dissent, and brutal crackdowns upon opposition groups and protestors.

Although the ongoing crisis encapsulates the government’s utter contempt for basic human rights and the overwhelming “politics of fear” that pervades the country’s socio-political landscape, it also reveals, in crystal clear detail, the highly troubling role played by much of the international community, led by the US and the West. Specifically, while the government’s brutal crackdown warrants a strong rebuke and condemnation, there has been a severely muted international response, with many of Ethiopia’s foreign supporters remaining silent.

Rather than condemn and censure Ethiopia’s brutal crackdown, the international community has turned a blind eye, abdicated its responsibility, and instead been acquiescent to Ethiopia’s persistent violations and repression. Last year, both US President, Barack Obama, and US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman, granted legitimacy to the Ethiopian government by praising its “democracy” – even though the country’s ruling party, the Ethiopian People’s Ruling Democratic Front (EPRDF), swept the national elections by winning 100 percent of the parliamentary seats.

When the French statesman, Talleyrand, was told by an aide of the murder of a political opponent, the aide said, “It’s a terrible crime, Sir.” In response, Talleyrand answered, “It’s worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.” Likewise is the West’s propping up of the Ethiopian government. Unwavering support for and appeasement of Ethiopia are part of a policy approach based upon the misguided belief, dating back to the immediate post-World War 2 period but rearticulated more recently in terms of regional “anchor states” designations, that Ethiopia is vital to protecting US and Western geostrategic interests and foreign policy aims. However, not only is this approach morally reprehensible, with the US and West being directly complicit in the mass crimes, transgressions, and reign of terror perpetrated by the Ethiopian government, the misguided policy approach has largely failed to achieve its objectives, to even a minor degree, and instead only served to stunt regional development and destabilize both Ethiopia and the broader Horn of Africa region.

In seeking to address Ethiopia’s flagrant dismissal of international norms and blatant disregard for human rights, a number of measures could be undertaken (e.g. sanctions). However, the first, and possibly most far-reaching and effective, response by the international community should be to withdraw its unwavering support for the repressive Ethiopian government.

George Galloway, respected British politician, broadcaster, and writer, has frequently voiced concern of how the West’s support for dictatorial, tyrannical regimes in the name of security only results in “blowback” and harming the populations of those countries. Regarding Ethiopia, Galloway has decried how the UK and US policy of encouraging, arming, training, financing, and facilitating the Ethiopian government’s “reign of terror” is “morally vacuous.” Similarly, respected international economist, William Easterly, has recommended that the international community “stop financing tyranny and repression” in Ethiopia.

For decades, Ethiopia has been highly dependent on external economic assistance. In 2012, it was the world’s seventh largest recipient of official humanitarian aid and received $3.2B in total assistance, the latter figure representing between 50-60 percent of its total budget, while its 2011 share of total official development assistance – approximately 4 percent – placed it behind only Afghanistan. Problematically, however, even while it is one of the world’s leading recipients of foreign aid, and is currently requesting even greater financial support, the Ethiopian government also annually spends hundreds of millions of dollars on weapons and arms – which are now being used against its own civilians.

With such a critical dependency on foreign aid, threats to “turn off the tap” unless Ethiopia changes course may be a viable step toward improving the country’s rights record. Alternatively, rather than providing aid directly to the Ethiopian regime, which has a long track record of corruption and misappropriation, the international community should consider directly supporting local human rights and democracy groups (although this may be difficult due to Ethiopia’s draconian laws on civil society and NGOs).

An indication of the possible far-reaching effects of removing external support from a harsh, brutal regime can be seen in the example of Indonesia. Noam Chomsky, internationally renowned professor and activist, has written and spoken extensively on how US and Western support for the despotic regime in Indonesia played an indirect, yet extremely harmful, role in the carnage and deaths of hundreds of thousands in East Timor. However, in 1999, after much pressure, the US finally “pulled the plug” on its support for the Suharto regime, quickly leading to the end of Indonesia’s brutal campaign. Specifically,

“[f]or 25 years, the United States strongly supported the vicious Indonesian invasion and massacre, a virtual genocide. It was happening right through 1999, as the Indonesian atrocities increased and escalated, after Dili the capital city was practically evacuated. After Indonesian  attacks, the US was still supporting it. Finally, in mid-September 1999, under considerable international and also domestic
pressure, Clinton quietly told the Indonesian generals ‘It’s finished.’ And they had said they’d never leave, they said “this is our territory.” They pulled out within days, and allowed a UN peacekeeping force to enter without Indonesian military resistance. Well, you know, that’s a dramatic indication of what can be done.”

While the socio-political dynamics and historical contexts of Indonesia and Ethiopia are admittedly quite different, the comparison also offers relevant and striking similarities. Both regimes received decades-worth of external economic, military, and political support (particularly from the US). Additionally, both regimes systematically and persistently violated human rights, transgressed various international laws (such as through military occupation), and engaged in large-scale campaigns described as “genocidal.”

With Ethiopia continuing to overlook basic international norms, standards, and laws in its brutal crackdowns upon opposition groups and protestors, the international community must end its complicity in and indirect support for the government’s various transgressions. As Clinton relayed to Indonesia’s leadership, the international community must tell Ethiopia, “It’s finished.”

By Lt. Gen. P. C. Katoch*

The Afghanistan government has reportedly told Pakistan that Hafiz Saeed, former Lashkar-e-Taiba (leT) chief is directing ISIS attacks in Afghanistan. This was pointed out by Afghan officials during a meeting in Kabul on July 26 that focused on security along the Af-Pak border. The meeting was attended by Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO officials. Afghan officials also reportedly sought Islamabad’s cooperation in preventing ISIS terrorists from entering Afghanistan from Pakistan – a demand that Pakistan would simply put in the dustbin, as always.

That the Pakistani military is actually orchestrating these attacks in conjunction Hafiz Saeed is without doubt. NATO being unaware of LeT involvement in Afghanistan is doubtful considering that the recently released UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) report confirms that majority casualties in recent times have been caused by the anti-Afghan government forces; to include Taliban as well as individuals and non-state organized armed groups taking a direct part in hostilities that includes LeT, Jaish-e- Mohammed, Haqqani Network, Hezb-e-Islami, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Islamic Jihad Union, groups identified as ‘Daesh’ (IS) and other militia and armed groups.

In fact, this is the first time that a UNAMA report has mentioned LeT and JeM operating in Afghanistan. The more significant part is that while the UNAMA report has not been prepared overnight, the US intelligence has remained quiet over LeT and JeM in Afghanistan, only talking about the Haqqani Network, despite both LeT and JeM being under Pakistani military-ISI tutelage and Hafiz Saeed treated as Pakistan’s state celebrity despite being the recipient of Interpol’s red corner notice twice.

The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) involvement in the July 23 Kabul terrorist attack is confirmed with one suicide bomber shot dead and identified as a Pakistani – may be LeT / JeM cadre or even from Pakistan’s Mujahid battalions trained to fight masquerading as Taliban. The mention of LeT and JeM in the UNAMA report would perhaps have been missed out had Tadamichi Yamamoto not been UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and head of UNAMA. Witness 29 page statement by James Clapper, Director National Intelligence on ‘Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community’ to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that covers Pakistan (the epicenter of terrorism) in less than four lines, that too hyphenated with India in describing the January 1, 2016 terror attack on the Indian Air Force base at Pathahkot in north India. Enough evidence is emerging that the Obama administration abetted the rise of ISIS to use it as a tool, installed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which is banned today, and then there is the radicalization of Turkey permitting Erdogan establish his own caliphate in exchange for Erdogan permitting Turkish territory to train and finance ISIS and other anti-Assad proxies, as well as serving as the conduit for ISIS to smuggle out and sell oil.

Speaking at a conference on cyber-security at Fordham University on 27 July 2016, FBI chief James Comey said that eventual victory over ISIS could lead to an uptick of terrorist attacks on the West, not a reduction in them, adding they are going to flow primarily to Western Europe but some could well end up in the US. What did Comey imply – go slow on ISIS or divert them elsewhere (South Asia?) or both?

The “eventual victory” part is misnomer anyway because despite years of fighting the US-NATO could not finish off Al Qaeda; ISIS is much bigger and its annihilation would hardly be attempted if the aim of the US administration is to use it as a tool. The question, therefore, is whether the emergence of LeT and JeM in Afghanistan and the prominent role in directing the so-called ISIS operations in Afghanistan by Hafiz Saeed (under tutelage of ISI) has the tacit approval of the CIA?

It is well known that despite the LeT’s global ambitions, the US simply let it flourish, even when LeT cadres were filling up voids in the Al Qaeda set up because of casualties inflicted by US and NATO forces. Foreseeing future threats, Ashley Tellis of Carnegie Foundation had warned the US in 2012 that the only reasonable objective for the US must be the “permanent evisceration of terrorist groups specially al-Qaeda and LeT, which threaten American interests directly, with Pakistani cooperation if possible, but without it if necessary”. This was ignored by the US resulting in Hafiz Saeed continuing exporting terror and openly calling for war against infidels under cover of Jamat-ud-Dawa the overt arm of LeT that engages in social programs also.

What comprises Vilayet Khorasan and how has the current perception been managed? According to Director National Intelligence of the US, “the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) announced in January 2015 the formation of its Khorasan branch in South Asia, an amalgamation of primarily disaffected and rebranded former Afghan Taliban and Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) members. Despite quick early growth in 2015, ISIL’s Khorasan branch will probably remain a low-level threat to Afghan stability as well as to US and Western interests in the region in 2016”. There is little doubt that its organizational structure was populated in the Peshawar region and then pushed west to the Nangarhar province of Afghanistan. The leadership was rigged through the ISI the very same way that the amalgamation of the TTP and Afghan Taliban is presently controlled through the Haqqani Network. In the recent years, the Taliban did plenty of recruiting in Badakhshan (Afghanistan) that bore fruit in the capture of Kunduz last September with ISI officials directing the operation from Pakistan and from within Kunduz. So, when a few thousand TTP cadres were sent off to Syria in 2014 under the FATA born Hafiz Saeed Khan, it was by design. His return in 2015 and being nominated chief of Vilayet Khorasan or Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) was also by design, akin to Asim Umar being nominated chief of AQIS for South Asia.

Pakistani officials reportedly displayed fair bit of confusion when Afghanistan accused Hafiz Muhammed Saeed of directing ISIS operations in Afghanistan, thinking it was ISKP chief Hafiz Saeed Khan that Afghans were referring to. But Afghan officials had hit the nail on the head. For decades, the Pakistani military has been engaged in proxy wars across its borders, mixing regular soldiers with militant cadres. Perceptions have been managed that various terrorist and insurgent groups operate in separate compartments whereas they are one big interlinked mass, the nerve centre of which is Pakistani military ISI. Witness the game by General Kiyani nudging Obama that he would get Haqqani Network to break away from Al Qaeda and join the talks with Afghan government – a most ludicrous suggestion that US swallowed.

ISIS delegations from Iraq-Syria have come to Balochistan twice to tie up with Jundallah, and which too is by design and on the invitation of ISI. Most significantly, these ISIS delegations also had ISIS representatives from Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan. Sure, some radicals from Kunar and Nuristan provinces have declared allegiance to ISKP but its cadres are likely a mix of both Taliban, LeT, JeM; the Pakistani regulars in covert role, ISI deputies thrown in for guidance and ISI-stooge Hafiz Mohammed Saeed directing his half namesake ISKP chief in attacking Afghanistan.

Why Hafiz Muhammad Saeed has been granted this special honour is because he has ensured that the LeT never once has attacked Pakistani military in past 29 years since its very inception in 1987. Sure, the ISKP is also in touch with main branch of ISIS in Syria but as US General Sean Swindell told BBC exact relationship between the two is unclear. According to General William Nicholson, Commanding Resolute Support Mission of US Forces in Afghanistan (USFOR-A), ISKP is in regular touch with main branch of ISIS in Syria, but that is only expected. For years US did the perception building that both Taliban are daggers drawn; only reluctantly admitting now this is not the case.

So, Vilayet Khorasan actually amounts to about a brigade strength controlled by Pakistan’s ISI. That is why Afghan Scholars refer to it as an ISI Brigade, not ISIS. Little wonder then that the boastful speech by Asad Durrani, former ISI chief in London during 2014 led Myra McDonald to report, “Pakistan’s aim in Afghanistan all along has been to turn the clock back to Sept 10, 2001 – when it exercised its influence over the country through its Taliban allies – it could almost have been a victory speech”. Zamir Kabulov, Russian Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan estimates ISIS strength in Afghanistan at about 10,000 including supporters while the US estimates their strength between 1,000 and 3,000 active members. ISIS operations in Afghanistan may be low key by US intelligence standards, but the July 23 suicide attack was the deadliest since 2001, described as “war crime” by UNAMA chief Tadamichi Yamamoto.

This is not the first time that Hazaras have been targeted in Afghanistan with the aim of polarizing the country ethnically for reasons well understood. Emerging contours of the Great Game in Af-Pak region do not spell well. Counter-terrorism advice by the West always includes ‘seek cooperation’ from Pakistan in countering terror – flogging the same dead horse for past decades, well known to these experts. So Vilayet Khorasan, with its links to sister terrorist organizations, is likely to play a bigger role in Af-Pak. Will the great power posturing from the background lead to a situation where President Putin may need to fire off couple of cruise missiles? The game of checkers may not be strictly favourable to the Chinese with Erdogan also training Uighur and ETIM in conjunction Pakistan’s ISI. Little wonder then that Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is advising Pakistan tells China to go slow in Xinjiang. Much more violence is certainly on the cards.

*Lt. Gen. P. C. Katoch is veteran of Indian Army. He can be reached at: prakashkatoch7@gmail.com

“Turkey is slowly leaving the Atlantic system. That is the reason behind this coup. That is the reason why NATO is panicking. This is much broader and much bigger than Erdogan. This is a tectonic movement. This will affect Turkish-Syrian relations, Turkish-Chinese relations, Turkish-Russian relations and Turkish-Iranian relations. This will change the world.”

— Yunus Soner, Deputy Chairman Turkish Patriotic Party

“It is becoming clear that the attempted putsch was not just the work of a small clique of dissatisfied officers inside the armed forces; it was rather the product of a vast conspiracy to take over the Turkish state that was decades in the making and might well have succeeded.”

— Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch

On August 9,   Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Saint Petersburg  The two leaders will discuss political developments following the recent coup-attempt in Turkey, tourism, and the launching of Turkstream, the natural gas pipeline that will transform Turkey into southern Europe’s biggest energy hub..  They are also expected to explore options for ending the fighting in Syria. Putin will insist that Erdogan make a concerted effort to stop Islamic militants from crossing back-and-forth into Syria, while Erdogan will demand that Putin do everything in his power to prevent the emergence of an independent Kurdish state on Turkey’s southern border.  The meeting will end with the typical smiles and handshakes accompanied by a joint statement pledging to work together peacefully to resolve regional issues and to put an end to the proxy war that has left Syria in tatters.

All in all, the confab will seem like another public relations charade devoid of any larger meaning, but that’s certainly not the case. The fact is, the normalizing of relations between Russia and Turkey will  foreshadow a bigger geopolitical shift that will link Ankara to Tehran, Damascus and other Russian allies across Eurasia. The alliance will alter the global chessboard in a way that eviscerates the imperial plan to control the flow of energy from Qatar to Europe, redraw the map of the Middle East and pivot to Asia. That strategy will either be decimated or suffer a severe setback. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious to anyone who can read a map. Turkey’s location makes it the indispensable state, the landbridge that connects the wealth and modernity of the EU with the vast resources and growing population of Asia. That vital connecting piece of the geopolitical puzzle is gradually slipping out of Washington’s orbit and  into enemy territory. The July 15 coup is likely the final nail in the NWO coffin for reasons we will discuss later.  Here’s a clip from Eric Draitser’s insightful piece titled “Erdogan’s Checkmate: CIA-Backed Coup in Turkey Fails, Upsets Global Chessboard” that summarizes what’s going on:

“Ultimately, the failed 2016 coup in Turkey will have lasting ramifications that will impact the years and decades ahead.  With Turkey now clearly breaking with the US-NATO-EU axis, it is rather predictable that it will seek to not only mend fences with both Russia and China, but to place itself into the non-western camp typified by BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, China’s One Belt One Road strategy, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, etc.” (“Erdogan’s Checkmate: CIA-Backed Coup in Turkey Fails, Upsets Global Chessboard“, Global Research)

In an earlier part of the article, Draitser correctly identifies the  followers of Fethullah Gulen as the perpetrators of the coup. As he and others have pointed out, Gulen’s agents have penetrated all levels of the Turkish state and military acting as a shadow government (aka- “parallel state”) that poses a direct threat to Turkey’s national security..  Here’s journalist Patrick Cockburn making the same point in a recent article in CounterPunch:

“There is little question left that the followers of Fethullah Gulen were behind the coup attempt, despite his repeated denials. “I don’t have any doubt that the brain and backbone of the coup were the Gulenists,” says Kadri Gursel, usually a critic of the government. He adds that he is astonished by the degree to which the Gulenists were able to infiltrate and subvert the armed forces, judiciary and civil service. ….

…it is difficult to find anybody on the left or right who does not suspect that at some level the US was complicit in the coup attempt. Erdogan is probably convinced of this himself, despite US denials, and this will shape his foreign policy in future….

…if the coup had more successful, Turkey would have faced a full-blown military dictatorship or a civil war, or both. Erdogan said in an interview that foreign leaders who now counsel moderation would have danced for joy if he had been killed by the conspirators….” (“After the Coup, Turkey is Being Torn Apart“, Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch)

If the coup had succeeded, then it is quite likely that Erdogan would have been savagely murdered like Gadhafi while the state was plunged into a long-term civil war. This is why Erdogan has removed tens of thousands of Gulen sympathizers or operatives from their positions in the state, the media, the military and the universities. These prisoners will now be charged with supporting the coup (treason?) and could face the death penalty. Critics in the Obama administration and western media have lambasted Erdogan for violating civil liberties in his effort to rid the country of fifth columnists and traitors, but the Turkish President will have none of it. He has angrily responded saying that Washington was “taking the side of the coup leaders.”

“Now I ask”, said Erdogan, “does the West give support to terror or not? Is the West on the side of democracy or on the side of coups and terror? Unfortunately, the West gives support to terror and stands on the side of coups….We have not received the support we were expecting from our friends, neither during nor after the coup attempt.”

Erdoğan lamented that no Western leader had come to Turkey to express condolences and show solidarity with the Turkish people.” (Hurriyet, Turkish Daily)

He has a point, doesn’t he? While I am no fan of the autocratic and narcissistic Erdogan, it’s very suspicious that Washington is so eager to criticize and so reluctant to help. After all, the two countries are allies, right?

And what does Erdogan want?

He wants the US to extradite Gulen (who currently lives in exile in Pennsylvania) so he can face charges of treason in Turkey.. According to Erdogan, “Documents have been sent to the U.S.” establishing Gulen’s guilt.  But the Obama administration remains unmoved, even though Turkey has handed over terrorists to the US in the past without evidence. Apparently, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

It’s worth repeating what Cockburn said in the excerpt above. He said: “it is difficult to find anybody on the left or right who does not suspect that at some level the US was complicit in the coup attempt.”

Why is that? Why does everyone in Turkey –regardless of their politics or ethnicity–think the US had a hand in the coup?

Take a look at this clip from an article at the World Socialist Web Site which helps to explain:

“US claims that Washington had no advance warning of the coup are simply not credible. Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, which hosts more than 5,000 American soldiers and is the main base for the US-led bombing campaign against Syria and Iraq, was the organizing center of the putsch. Pro-coup fighter jets flew in and out of Incirlik as the coup unfolded. Shortly after the coup failed, the base commander, General Bekir Ercan Van, was arrested along with other pro-coup soldiers at the base.

Given that Incirlik is the site of dozens of US nuclear weapons, no credibility can be given to claims that US intelligence was unaware that a coup against Erdogan was being organized from there. Were that truly the case, it would represent a CIA intelligence breakdown of stunning proportions….

A pro-coup officer captured by the Turkish government, Lieutenant Colonel Murat Bolat, told the conservative Yeni Savak newspaper that his unit was designated to detain and possibly murder Erdogan after receiving precise information on Erdogan’s location from US sources.

“A person in the meeting, whom I guess was an officer from the Special Forces, said, ‘Nobody will be allowed to rescue the president from our hands,’” he said, indicating that this meant Erdogan was to be shot after he was captured if the forces who had arrested him faced any counterattack.” (“Erdogan accuses US of supporting failed coup in Turkey“, World Socialist Web Site)

While the information is not conclusive, it is suspicious. At the very least, Washington knew a coup was being planned and looked the other way. This except from a post by Harvard professor, Dani Rodrik seems like a very plausible explanation of US involvement to me. Here’s a brief clip:

 “The U.S. government may not have had a direct hand in Gulen’s activities, but it is more difficult to dismiss the argument that it provided tacit support – or that some parts of the U.S. administration prevailed on other parts who were less keen on Gulen.

…As the Wikileaks cables I referred to above make clear, the State Department, at least, has been well aware of Gulenist infiltration of the Turkish military for quite some time. The Gulenists’s role in Sledgehammer, which led to the discharge of many of the most Kemalist/secularist officers in the military is equally clear. Beyond Sledgehammer, the Gulenists’ wide range of clandestine operations against opponents in Turkey must be well known to American intelligence…..

…the head of the Turkish military, who was held hostage by the putschists during the coup attempt, has said that one of his captors offered to put him in touch with Gulen directly. This, on its own, is prima facie evidence of Gulen’s involvement, and likely passes the “probable cause” test that is required for extradition. Incredibly, administration officials are still quoted as saying “there is no credible evidence of Mr. Gulen’s personal involvement.” In other words, these officials must think that the army chief of their NATO ally is lying.” (“Is the U.S. behind Fethullah Gulen?“, Dani Rodrik’s Blog)

The Obama administration’s support for the Kurds in Syria as well as its behavior following the coup of July 15,  has led to a dramatic deterioration in US-Turkey relations. This will undoubtedly effect Erdogan’s willingness to allow the US to use its airbases for conducting bombing raids in Syria in the future.  It’s also bound to accelerate the pace at which Turkey strengthens relations with Russia, Iran and others as it will need the protection of new allies to better defend itself against threats from the west.

The Obama administration is still uncertain of how to proceed mainly because no one had expected that Erdogan would break with Washington, purge his enemies, pursue rapprochement with Moscow, Tehran and Damascus, and throw a wrench in Uncle Sam’s plan for redrawing the map of the Middle East.  At present, the administration is trying to ease tensions  by dispatching one high-ranking official after the other to persuade Erdogan that the US was not involved in the coup. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford visited Ankara just this week while Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden are scheduled for later in the month. Eventually, even Obama will be asked to make the trek.  No effort will be spared to bring Erdogan back into the fold.

If, however, the charm offensive fails, as I expect it will, Erdogan will be crucified in the western media (Hitler Erdogan) while covert operatives and NGOs try to foment political instability. At least, that’s the way things normally play out.

By Chintamani Mahapatra*

Never before did the American foreign policy draw so much limelight during an election year in the US as it has now. Likewise, the global anxiety over the outcome of a presidential election in the US has become more palpable today than ever in the past. Similarly, rarely have allied and rival countries of the US expressed their disquiet and angst over the foreign policy statements of an American presidential nominee as it is being witnessed during the 2016 election campaign. Yet, another new history in the ongoing US presidential election campaign is the vigorous opposition to their nominee’s positions on foreign policy issues by senior officials of his own party.

All these because of unconventional foreign policy views by Republican nominee Donald Trump that have unsettled both allies and enemies of the US to varying degrees. Trump’s prickly tongue has invited bitter invectives against him as well. Incumbent US President Barack Obama declared Trump “unfit” to serve as the Commander-in Chief of the US army. Incumbent US Vice President Joe Biden said, “threats are too great, and times are too uncertain” to elect Trump as the next US President, since he “has no clue about what makes America great”, even though he vows to make America “great again.” Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have accused Trump of making “disgraceful statements that betray” the “long standing values and national interests” of the US.

When Trump questioned the usefulness of the nuclear weapons by asking, “if we have them, why can’t we use them,” his “mental stability” came under suspicion. Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate Bill Weld said “He’s a showman…a pied piper…a music man” and more seriously “the noun that comes to my mind is a “screw loose.”

Significantly, the Republican Party’s senior officials and leaders too are miffed with Trump’s foreign policy statements. More particularly, a group of former cabinet officers, senior officials and career military officials, in an open letter in the Washington Post challenged Trump’s position on Europe, NATO and Russia, saying “We find Trump’s comments to be reckless, dangerous and extremely unwise” that go against “core, bipartisan principle found in every U.S. administration….” This is where both the Democrats as well as the Republicans seem to be united against Trump.

So are some American allies. For instance, French President Francois Hollande reportedly thinks that Donald Trump’s comments are “vomit-inducing.” America’s trade partners are apprehensive about Trump’s opposition to free trade. American allies are concerned about his position that unless they pay adequately for it, they should fend for themselves in defence and security matters. The US’ neighbours appear concerned about his ideas to build walls to prevent illegal movement of people.

There is little doubt that shallow remarks and use of obnoxious language have earned Trump several enemies within his country and abroad. But will Trump, if he wins the election, build a wall along the Mexican border? Will he disband NATO? Will he ask Japan and South Korea to make nuclear weapons to defend themselves? Will he endorse the spread of Russian influence? Will he flex muscles against China? Will he walk away from trade deals his predecessors have concluded? Will he wage a unilateral war against the Islamic State?

The answer is perhaps in the negative. It is important to separate rhetoric from reality to assess the US’ role under a possible Trump administration. In the heat of the campaign, all the candidates make promises, issue statements and indulge in strong criticisms, and once a nominee wins the election and assumes office, the whole world suddenly looks strikingly different. In this complex dynamics of domestic politics and intricate web of international relations, a single American president simply cannot do what he desires or dreams or promises. This will be more applicable to Trump than to his rival, Hillary Clinton, since the former is completely raw on foreign policy/national security issues and later is a proven diplomat.

However, Trump and his campaigns have already begun to change course. He has begun to find faults with the foreign policy weaknesses of the Obama Administration, build his own vision of a world order where the US would have restored its prestige, power and economic weight in the global. He harps on making “America great again” in the backdrop of declining US influence in the world order; he wants to make common cause with Russia and give an option to China to productively cooperate or risk having its own separate path; manage the huge trade deficit and restore the manufacturing primacy to keep jobs at home; confront radical Islam and stabilise regional orders than export the Western version of democracy; concentrate on domestic developments and not on nation-building abroad. All these ideas are expected to win votes and not please allies or displease rivals abroad.

* Chintamani Mahapatra
Rector, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Professor, School of International Studies, JNU, & Columnist, IPCS

Only a few days ago an American Muslim lady Najaf Khan, working as a dental assistant at Fair Oaks Dental Care in Virginia, was fired from her job because she wore a Muslim head scarf (hijab) at work. Another recent incident is when Nazia and Faisal Ali-an American Muslim were deplaned from their flight from Paris to Cincinnati, Ohio by Delta Air Lines for just uttering the word ‘Allah’. The stories are endless and such incidents area routine now in the so called age of multiculturalism and democracy. Such a trend against Muslims and Muslim women especially is a global phenomenon now.

While it is true that most of the Muslim women irrespective of literate/illiterate category desire change and are fed up of Fatwas and unneeded moral policing that are often more binding on them. However simultaneously there are crisis within the so called multicultural/secular social systems where every community is conscious of its identity and prefer their own codes rather than general laws which has now opened a big debate on Common Civil Code in the country.

The state also plays politics over such personal laws and keeps mum even in extreme human rights violation cases like Imrana rape case (2005, MuzzafarNagar) or Roop Kanwar tragedy (Derola, Rajasthan),etc,. The Muslim women’s movements or for that matter other women movements along with the idea of feminism receive a setback when even women instead of uniting for a cause resort to community codes rather than their own rights and empowerment. What forces them for such a reality is actually rooted in their socio-economic and cultural set up. They are more dependent and much regulated.

While multiculturalism theoretically demands respect for all cultural traditions and lays the foundation for peaceful coexistence and harmony, feminism respects only those traditions which deserve the respect. Cultural identity in the contemporary times has come to be viewed as a dynamic phenomenon and cultural practices and arrangements are recognized as sites of contestation as well. This is not wrong to maintain that majority of world cultures though multicultural still continue to be patriarchal and the case of India is not exceptional.

There are crisis with multiculturalism also like calls from cultural minority groups for greater recognition and rights inevitably raising questions about the proper scope and limits of such an accommodation. When cultural practices and arrangements that are protected by policies of multicultural tradition stand in tension with constitutional guarantees of gender equality, or when social practices are internally contested within communities like female genital mutilation continued as a cultural practice, crisis against intragroup marriages leading to honour killings (Khap terror), shame killings (Qandeel Bloch’s murder, female child abortions of infants), etc, the very pluralism turns to contestation and becomes nothing but a myth. Therefore, securing women’s rights by keeping in view their different backgrounds and identities and protect them from harm in multicultural societies is a bigger task before the states globally. The fact remains that women’s vulnerability has increased multifold due to political uprisings, violent conflicts, social tensions like riots, increasing sex crimes, decreasing sex ratio, poverty and politicisation of women’s issues, etc,.

Almost now everyday there is a news about Muslim women being fired for wearing Hijab or Muslims deplaned from flights even in America for saying the word ‘Allah’ or denied boarding for their looks. This is not multiculturalism but islamophobia.

Besides this, there are some complex intricacies with the concept of contemporary multiculturalism as well. When liberal democratic states attempt to limit, reform, or prohibit cultural practices and arrangements of ethnic and religious groups, their actions are perceived as a deliberate intrusion, or even oppression against particular groups or minorities. Not surprisingly, such intervention mostly backfire in terms of dissent and protest and even strengthen the customs or practices in question like the renewed commitment to the wearing of the veil, headscarf or chadar in North African communities in France and Turkey.

Although in some cases, state bodies make efforts to consult with the community in question but too often these overtures have a token quality to them and do not help to build lasting political trust. A minority community’s confidence in state-led reforms of their cultural arrangements is diminished still further when racism is pervasive in the broader social, economic, and political institutions. However, all the multicultural traditions are not beset to such complexities as the state and society has gradually absorbed the art of accommodation for all though not without exceptions and aberrations. Multiculturalism today is a reality in almost every nation however simultaneously it is equally true that most of the traditional cultures have historically oppressed women. Therefore, governments bear the burden of formulating policies that protect women’s rights within a multicultural framework.

There has to be a rethink on overall gender justice perspectives and policies at place though in the contemporary era there is a democratic tradition and a general commitment to protect the individual’s civil and political rights everywhere. Not just this but the followers of multiculturalism ideology should pursue feminist and gender-based alignments within cultural practices so that the society can realize the constitutional goals of universal equality, gender equality and justice. Women though many a time are victims of the personal laws but are always motivated by vested interests to follow community codes rather than work for their own emancipation and that is why we are still yet to have a common women’s movement.

Even history is testimony to the fact that women are not just victims in times of riots but also assist their men to perpetuate violence on other women or groups (Surat Riots). The case of ‘saying no to the second marriage’ does not apply only to Muslim women but any women on the globe have the inherent tendency for this choice. Personal laws/moral brigade/community laws must be paid attention unless and until they don’t compromise an individual’s basic human rights and women have to realise that acting as an agency of patriarchy and exercise power on other women is not their actual power but the biggest impediment to a united and successful women’s movement. Let us at least not justify rapes by people merely as political conspiracies (Azam Khan’s recent comments on rape comment) mistakes or link even molestations with dress code of women or favour community policing or so called moral brigades by linking to religions. Yesterday only in the Muslim dominated Kashmir valley, posters from some militant organisation were discovered giving an open threat to Kashmiri Pandits (Kashmiri non-Muslims) to leave the valley or be ready to die.

(Author is a Delhi Based Sociologist and Researcher at Sarojini Naidu centre for Women’s Studies Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Mail at adfer.syed@gmail.com).

Kamal Salibi, one of the Arab world’s foremost contemporary historians, kicked up a storm when he concluded in a 1985 linguistic exegesis that Judaism’s Zion was not located in Israel but in Saudi Arabia. Israelis, Jews, Saudis, Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians found common ground at the time to denounce Mr. Salibi in stark terms.

Israelis, Jews and evangelists charged that Mr. Salibi’s bombshell book, The Bible Came from Arabia, constituted an attempt to delegitimize the Jewish State and undermine its historic claim to modern day Israel. Israeli historians and rabbis denounced the theory as mythology, science fiction and nonsense.

Saudis, afraid that Israelis might take Mr. Salibi seriously and attempt to colonise the mountains of Sarawat, which the scholar believed was the Jordan valley referred to in the Bible, bulldozed dozens of villages which contained buildings or structures from Biblical antiquity. Abodes were turned into rubble in line with Wahhabi ideology that legitimized destruction of anything that could be construed as idol worship.

The Saudi effort made it more unlikely that archaeology would ever be able to resolve the controversy given that decades of diggings in modern day Israel have yet to yield incontrovertible evidence such as Hebrew inscriptions that unambiguously refer to events, people, or places named in the Old Testament.

Nonetheless, in a twist of irony, Saudi Arabia launched Mr. Salibi on his linguistic exegesis with the government’s publication in 1977 of a comprehensive list of thousands of place names in the kingdom. The list sparked Mr. Salibi’s interest because he had found little material for the early period of a history of Arabia he had just published.

”I was simply searching for place-names of non-Arabic origin in west Arabia, when the evidence that the whole Bible land was here struck me in the face. Nearly all the biblical place-names were concentrated in an area about 600 km long by 200 km wide, comprising what are today Asir and the southern part of the Hijaz,” Mr. Salibi wrote.

The controversy over Mr. Salibi’s assertions has long died down. Lack of contact between Saudi Arabia and Israel which do not maintain diplomatic relations and the fact that the kingdom was and is hardly a tourist destination except for the Muslim pilgrimage to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina ensured that research was all but impossible.

That however may be changing. Saudi Arabia, in an effort to diversify its energy-dependent economy and develop alternative sources of income is preparing to become a tourist destination, boasting its numerous historic sites.

Relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are changing as both countries find common ground in their hostility towards Iran and need to confront jihadist groups like the Islamic State. A retired Saudi general last month led a delegation of academics and businessmen in a rare, if not first public visit to Israel in a bid to stimulate debate about a 14-year old Saudi plan for Israeli-Arab peace.

The thawing of informal ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia is a far cry away from a situation in which Saudi Arabia will lift its ban on Israelis traveling to the kingdom. Saudi Arabia already in the 1990s rewrote visa regulations that effectively prevented Jews from visiting the kingdom. The Saudi labour ministry included in 2014 Judaism for the first time as an acceptable religion for migrant or foreign workers in the kingdom.

Writing in The Times of Israel two weeks after retired General Anwar Eshki’s visit, journalist Jessica Steinberg noted that a vibrant Jewish community had populated 3,000 years ago areas that today belong to Saudi Arabia and that the cities of Medina, Khaybar and Taymar hosted large numbers of Jews in the 6th and 7th century. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, Spain, a medieval Jewish traveller, visited some of those communities during a 12th century trip to what is today Israel. Rabbi Benjamin’s writings offer a demography of the communities he encountered.

A dying generation of elderly Saudis of Yemeni origin who live in towns and cities along Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen still recall the days prior to the establishment of the State of Israel when Jews were part of their community.

Anticipating a day where Israelis might be able to visit Saudi Arabia, Ms. Steinberg offered a primer of five Jewish sites in the kingdom’s Khaybar valley and ancient city of Taymar that can be accessed virtually:

• Khaybar, a date-growing valley and oasis with natural wells, that was home to a Jewish community and served as a stop on the incense trade route from Yemen to Syria and Lebanon. Although its 1,400-year-old cemetery is void of headstones, locals recall its Jewish history.
• Khaybar Fortress, the 1,400-year-old Fortress of the Jews perched on a hill overlooking the oasis that was conquered by the Prophet Mohamed. His nephew and son-in-law, Ali, unlocked the gate of the fortress, letting the Prophet’s army enter and conquer it.
• The Palace of the Jewish Tribe’s Head, also located in Khaybar, that was home to the Jewish tribe of Marhab famous for its gold and jewellery trade.
• Tayma known as fortified Jewish city where travellers stopped at the oasis to visit the Al-Naslaa Rock Formation, one of the most photogenic petroglyphs, or rock art, depicting the life and times of ancient communities.
• Bir Haddaj, a large well at the centre of Tayma that dates back to at least to the middle of the 6th century BCE. The well is mentioned in the Book of Isaiah as the place where the descendants of Ishmael’s son, Tema, lived: “Unto him that is thirsty bring ye water! The inhabitants of the land of Tema did meet the fugitive with his bread.”

Holding out the hope for closer ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Ms. Steinberg suggested that “the day may be drawing near” when “historical sites pertaining to the ancient Jewish experience” will be accessible.

As a result, Saudi tourism as much in the Middle East that is easily politicized could blow new life into the controversy over Mr. Salibi’s theory years after he passed away. Saudi fears notwithstanding, Israelis like their Saudi counterparts have no desire to rock the boat or even contemplate the theoretical possibility that that their forefathers may have made a mistake. Any argument that Israel might eye Saudi oil reserves is countered by the fact that Israel is becoming an oil producer in its own right.

Beyond the historical and academic value of settling the controversy sparked by Mr. Salibi, his theory offers rich material for the ultimate ‘what if’ book or great novel on the Middle East. Imagining ‘what if’ would unlikely lead to even more conflict in an already tortured region but could well offer new perspectives on how to resolve its multiple conflicts.

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for an assault by a machete-wielding man against two police officers in the Belgian city of Charleroi.

Quoting an unidentified source, the Amaq news agency, which is affiliated to Daesh, said on Sunday that the assailant was a “soldier” of the Takfiri group.

According to the Daesh-linked news agency, the attack came “in response to calls to target citizens” belonging to countries participating in a US-led coalition which is striking purported Daesh positions in Syria and Iraq.

Belgian prosecutors confirmed that the attacker was an Algerian national known to the police for criminal offences but not terrorism.

The federal prosecutor’s office said in a statement that the 33-year-old, identified by the initials as K.B., had been living in Belgium since 2012.

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel told a news briefing that the police had opened a terrorism investigation into the incident, adding, “We have been informed by federal prosecutors that an investigation has started for attempted terrorist murder… given certain elements (in the case).”

Local media reports said Saturday that the man attacked the two officers near the central police station in the city. The assault was carried out at about 4:00 p.m. local time.

A third officer shot and injured the attacker on the site. He later died of his wounds.

Belgium has been on alert since March 22, when extremists attacks hit Brussels airport and a subway station, killing over 30 people. Daesh claimed the deadly assaults.

Officials said at the time that the attacks were carried out by the same terrorist cell which launched attacks in the French capital on November 13, 2015. The shootings and explosions in Paris left 130 people dead.

Belgium, home to the main institutions of the European Union and the NATO headquarters, has been viewed as the prime source of recruitment for Daesh in Europe.

Deputy Chairman of the Center-Left Republican People’s Party (CHP) Namik Havutca argues that the base that stores 90 US tactical nuclear weapons “makes enemies of friendly countries and poses a threat to Turkey’s internal stability.

In the wake of the failed attempt to overthrow the Erdogan government on July 15 and the ensuing purge that has led to over 18,000 military servicemen and judges being rounded up and imprisoned on charges of treason, yet another Turkish leader has stepped forward calling on the country to step back from its alliance with NATO forces who top Erdogan regime officials accuse of being complicit in the botched coup.

The Deputy Chairman of Turkey’s Center-Left Republican People’s Party has called for the immediate eviction of all foreign aircraft, tools and materials from the country and said that Incirlik Air Base should be shuttered.

“Incirlik Air Base has added nothing but instability and fragmentation to Turkey and the region,” said Havutca. The lawmaker went on to say that the NATO base failed to stand by the Turkish people at a time when their blood was being spilled and the nation was in tears.

The lawmaker said that Incirlik Air Base poses a threat to the country, both internally and externally calling it responsible for “multiplying our enemies and turning our friends into enemies of the state.”

The politician has pushed forward a proposal titled “Incirlik Get Out” and calls on his colleagues in the parliament to support the measure in order to put an end to the military facility that he calls a “virus” that eats away at the Middle East.

Finally, Havutca alleges that the NATO base “served the purpose of providing logical support to the organization in the coup attempt.”

The strong words mirror recent anti-American protests near the base including a demonstration one week ago where 5,000 protesters screaming “death to the US” were trailed by vehicles and demanded that Incirlik Air Base be shutdown.

The agitation of the Turkish people also comes amid numerous claims by the Erdogan regime that the CIA, FBI, and a top US General John F. Campbell were all really the masterminds of the coup whereas the regime’s nemesis-in-chief Fethullah Gulen was called nothing but a “pawn” by the Turkish President.

Some people are under the impression that democracy and Islam are incompatible. But I don’t see any contradiction between democracy and Islam, as such. Though, I admit, that there is some friction between Islam and liberalism. When we say that there is a contradiction between Islam and democracy, we make a category mistake which is a serious logical fallacy.

There is a fundamental difference between democracy and liberalism. Democracy falls in the category of politics and governance while liberalism falls in the category of culture. We must be precise about the definitions of the terms that we employ in political science.

Democracy is simply a representative political system that ensures representation, accountability and the right of the electorate to vote governments in and to vote governments out. In this sense when we use the term democracy we mean a multi-party representative political system that confers legitimacy upon a government which comes to power through an election process which is a contest between more than one political parties in order to ensure that it is voluntary. Thus democracy is nothing more than a multi-party representative political system.

Some normative scientists, however, get carried away in their enthusiasm and ascribe meanings to technical terminology that are quite subjective and fallacious. Some will use the adjective liberal to describe the essence of democracy as liberal democracy while others will arbitrarily call it informed or enlightened democracy. In my opinion, the only correct adjective that can be used to describe the essence of democracy is representative democracy.

After settling on the theoretical aspect, let us now apply these concepts to the reality of the practical world, especially the phenomena of the nascent democratic movements of the Arab Spring. It’s a fact that the ground realities of the Arab and Islamic World fall well short of the ideal liberal democratic model of the developed Western World. However, there is a lot to be optimistic about. When the Arab Spring revolutions erupted in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, and before the Arab Spring turned into an abysmal winter in Libya and Syria, some of the utopian dreamers were not too hopeful about the outcome of those movements.

Unlike the socialist revolutions of ‘60s and ‘70s, when the visionaries of yore used to have a magic wand of bringing about a fundamental structural change that would have culminated into equitable distribution of wealth overnight, the neoliberal movements of present times are merely a step in the right direction that will usher the Arab and the Islamic World into an era of relative peace and progress.

The Arab Spring movements have not been led by Gamal Abdel Nassers, Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos, Jawahar Lal Nehrus and other such charismatic messiahs that the utopian thinkers are so fond of. But these revolutions have been the grassroots movements of a society in transition from an abject stagnant state towards a dynamic and representative future.

Let us be clear about one thing first and foremost: the Tunisian moderate Islamist political party, Ennahda, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would have followed the same old economic model of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak. It’s a growth-based neoliberal model as opposed to an equality-based socialist model. It’s a fact that the developing Third World economies with large populations and meager resources cannot be compared to the democratic socialist countries of Scandinavia.

A question arises that what would have the Arab Spring movements accomplished if the resultant democratic governments would have followed the same old neoliberal and growth-centered economic policies? It should be kept in mind that democracy is not the best of systems because it is the most efficient system of governance. Top-down autocracies are much more efficient than democracies.

But democracy is a representative political system. It brings about a grassroots social change. Enfranchisement, representation, transparency, accountability, checks and balances, rule of law and the consequent institution-building, nation-building and consistent long term policies are the fruits of representative democracy.

Immanuel Kant sagaciously posited that moral autonomy produces moral responsibility and social maturity. This social axiom can also be applied to politics and governance. Political autonomy and self-governance engender political responsibility and social maturity. A top-down political system is dependent on the artificial external force that keeps it going. The moment that external force is removed, the society reverts back to its previous state and the system collapses. But a grassroots and bottom-up political system evolves naturally and intrinsically.

We must not expect from the Arab Spring movements to produce results immediately. Bear in mind that the evolution of Western culture and politics happened over a course of many centuries. Moreover, the Arab revolutions of ‘60s and ‘70s only mobilized the elite classes. Some working classes might have been involved, but the tone and tenor of those revolutions was elitist and that’s the reason why those revolutions failed to produce the desired outcome. The Arab Spring movements, by contrast, mobilized the urban middle class of the Arab societies in the age of electronic media and information technology.

In the nutshell, if the Arab Spring movements have not been about the radical redistribution of wealth, or about creating a liberal utopia in the Middle East overnight, what was the objective of those movements then? Let me try to explain the aims of the Arab Spring movements by way of an allegory. Democracy is like a school and people are like children. We only have two choices: one, to keep the people under paternalistic dictatorships; two, to admit them in the school of representative democracy and let them experience democracy as a lived reality rather than some stale and sterile theory. The first option will only produce half-witted cretins, but the second option will give birth to an educated human resource that doesn’t just consumes resources but also creates new resources.

Finally, I would like to clarify that the militant phenomena in Libya and Syria has been distinct and separate from the political and democratic phenomena of the Arab Spring movements as in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen. A question arises that when political movements for enfranchisement turn violent, do their objectives cease to be legitimate? No they don’t, but from a pacifist standpoint we ought to make a distinction between political movements, to which we should lend our moral support; and the militant phenomena which should be discouraged.

In civil law a distinction is generally drawn between the lawful and unlawful assembly. It is the inalienable right of the people to peacefully assemble to press their demands for political reform. But the moment such protests become militarized and violent, they cease to be lawful. Expecting from the heavily armed militants as in Libya and Syria, who have been described by the Western mainstream media as “moderate rebels,” to bring about political reform and positive social change is not only naïve but bordering on insanity.

In the latter case the only prudent course for the international community is to pressurize both sides: the militants and the regimes, to show restraint and avoid using force; the political right of peaceful demonstrations for political and social reforms is always a given. The demonstrators must have our political and moral support but beyond that any militarization and so-called “liberal interventionism” for ulterior motives in an opportunistic manner is only likely to further exacerbate the conflict.

By Marie Pavageau*

Despite the fact that the majority of London and Scotland wanted to remain in the European Union (EU), Brexit is now a fait accompli. Perhaps one of the most important long-term consequences of this will be the impact of Brexit on European security and defence. Specifically, what does this mean for the dynamics of the NATO-EU overlap and what does it hold in store for the two nuclear deterrents – the British Trident replacement and the French Force De Frappe – both of which have been described in recent times as anachronistic?

As early as 1963, when Britain applied to the European Economic Community, then French President Charles de Gaulle described Britain as an American Trojan horse in Europe. Agreements such as Franco-British nuclear cooperation (2010 Lancaster Treaties) and bilateral ones are likely to survive Brexit, even if having the UK out will probably mean a new direction for the EU. Furthermore, being the only nuclear power in Europe will probably mean a French leadership in terms of defence in Europe. Generally speaking, the Brexit will result in a split between two visions for Europe and by extension two different orientations on its foreign policy: an Anglo-Saxon camp predominantly anti-Russian, and a more-tempered camp led by France and Germany on the Russian problem.

Anglo-Saxon Camp: Reinforcing NATO

As a way to compensate for lost clout and its place in the defence of Europe, is it highly probable that the UK will try to get closer to the US by reinvesting in NATO. Effectively intensifying their presence and commitment to NATO instead of the EU will be the obvious path for the UK to ensure the preservation of its geopolitical interests and agenda in the region. This surge in commitment will in all likelihood produce a stronger NATO and will reinforce the Anglo-Saxon influence in the Atlantic Alliance. Why? The maths is simple. By leaving the EU, the UK would presumably have more money to spend in the alliance, more manpower and most importantly more motivation to do so.

The real problem though comes about because of renewed demands for Scottish independence in the wake of Brexit. What does this mean for the British deterrent? Bruno Tertrais, a French nuclear expert, offers three options in the case of Scottish independence: the most credible according to him would be moving the submarines bases to bases in elsewhere in the UK; negotiating the creation of an enclave in Scotland but probably against the will of the locals; or moving the submarines to a foreign ally, for example to the US or even to France. Regardless of the option chosen, the result would be extremely costly for the UK in having to reinvest heavily in new support infrastructure.

A French leadership in the Defence of Europe

On the other side though France becomes a virtual paramount power within the EU. With a highly effective power projection force and considerable overseas engagement, the French force de frappe will in effect be the only organic EU nuclear shield. The question then is how does this reconcile with previous French statements that support France’s traditional policy of strategic autonomy? France for example is on record stating that the French UNSC veto will never become an EU UNSC veto. Similarly, the French nuclear doctrine focuses almost exclusively on the protection of French interests, not EU or allied interests. However now France has no peer in the EU – be it conventional or nuclear. This may in itself force a leadership role on to France however reluctant the country may be to assume that role, in much the same way as Germany has been entrusted with the economic leadership of the EU by the better performing northern states.

The Russia Question

What will determine the future path and possibly divergence of EU defence and NATO defence will be their responses to Russia. It is commonly said that the nuclear force is the UK’s and France’s “insurance policy” against potential aggressors – the only candidate at present being Russia. Brexit essentially re-shapes Europe’s relations with Russia since the EU will be losing one of its biggest anti-Russian voices, the UK. For that reason, Brexit will decisively alter Europe’s relations with Russia. While both arsenals are aimed primarily at Russia, the French tend to view Russia more as partner. NATO on the other hand will see a decisive shift in more hawkish voices on Russia being strengthened. This is largely due to the fact that the only countries that spend over 2 per cent of their GDP on defence as required by NATO are the countries that border and have the most to fear from Russia, in addition to the UK and US.

Consequently, it is safe to assume that the biggest impact of Brexit in security terms will be the divergence within Europe itself of an anti-Russia bloc focusing its energies on NATO and a more tempered bloc that may for the first time be able to lay the seeds of European defence.

* Marie Pavageau
Research Inter, NSP, IPCS

By Brig. Anil Gupta*

The latest revelation of the Pakistani Terrorist Bahadur Ali alias Saiffullah, who was captured alive by the Indian security forces in Kupwara sector, that he had met Hafiz Saeed twice in the Muzzafarabad training camp, has dispelled the clouds of uncertainty and suspicion that had till now shrouded the ongoing turmoil in Kashmir. The involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a jihadi terror organisation, in the current impasse has now been established beyond doubt.

A close scrutiny of the videos featuring Hafiz Saeed that have gone viral on the social media and his interviews to the Pakistani media have established the fact that he is indeed the organiser-in-chief of the current turmoil. Saifullah’s revelations that include, talking with Burhan Wani and latter’s admission that “he is ready to die” a few days before the Kokernag encounter in which he was killed; telephonic call from Ashiya Andrabi seeking help from Hafiz Saeed and her ‘Pakistani brothers’; presence of an amir (leader) of LeT in the funeral procession of Burhan Wani; seeking of Indian visa by Jamat-ud-Dawa (JUD) – a cover outfit of LeT – for carrying out relief operations in Valley and collection of donations in the name of Kashmiris by JUD volunteers in Pakistan are indicative of the level of involvement of LeT in the ongoing unrest in Kashmir Valley.

LeT, as mentioned earlier, is a jihadi terror organisation embedded in Salafi-Wahabi ideology and subscribes to a philosophy that seeks the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is the main facilitator and coordinator for the fulfillment of this ambitious aim of the jihadists. The proposed caliphate in South Asia is referred to as Khorasan. In order to achieve this aim, ISI has positioned its resources strategically. While the Afghan-centric terror outfits like Haqqani network, ISIS and Afghan Taliban operate from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, India-centric outfits operate both from the western and the eastern borders with India, with organisations like LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) operating from Punjab and Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), while the ISIS, Al-Qaeda in South Asia (AQIS) operate out of Bangladesh. ISI has succeeded to engage India on both the sides, with the western flank more active in the current scenario.

Zia-ul-Haq, the Pakistani dictator, is credited with radicalising Pakistan and its army. He is the author of the strategy of ‘bleeding India through a thousand cuts’ and was the mastermind behind the ‘Operation Topaz’ that was put into action by Pakistan in 1989 with the intention to destabilise India. Kashmir was chosen as the battle ground and designated as the centre of gravity; ISI was designated as the agency to supervise the operation. It all began with fuelling an insurgency followed by a proxy-war.

One of the major components of Operation Topaz was the radicalisation of Kashmir that was to unfold as the other elements of this operation were to keep the Indian government and its security forces busy in fighting a proxy war. Thus, Pakistan, slowly and gradually, launched its systematic campaign of radicalisation. While the Indian security forces had their energies involved in conducting anti-terrorist operations and to fight a proxy-war that was being waged against the Indian state in Kashmir, the civilian-administrative apparatus did not take much cognizance of the ominous threat of radicalisation that was unleashed simultaneously by ISI.

With the emergence of global terror outfits with the avowed aim of establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, ISI also shifted the goalpost in Kashmir by including total Islamisation of Kashmir as the end result in the hope that an Islamised Kashmir will naturally be attracted towards Pakistan. Unfortunately, despite enough indicators, the emerging threat continued to be ignored or underestimated by those who were responsible for governing the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

India failed to realise that the proxy-war is only a means to an end and not the end in itself. Post 2010, there was a decline in cross-border terrorism, but the raising of Pakistan’s flag, celebration of the independence day of Pakistan, anti-India tirade by Hurriyat leaders, rise of a new cult of local terrorists and unfolding of a new wave of militancy referred to as ‘new militancy’ became more pronounced. Simultaneously, the Kashmiri landscape and social milieu underwent another type of change; Sufism was gradually sidelined by the radical Salafi-Wahabi Islam coupled with mushrooming of mosques and madarsas with liberal funding of petro-dollars from Saudi Arabia and a few European nations duly sponsored by ISI.

Today, Zia must have been laughing in his grave as he seed his dream of radicalising Kashmir come true and the ISI top-brass must be patting itself on the back for inching closer to the ultimate aim of establishing an “Islamic State” in Kashmir.

Has the present situation taken us by surprise? Did we fail to anticipate? Were we too divorced from the ground reality? The answer is in the negative. There were enough indicators especially after the emergence of ISIS and declaration of the Islamic caliphate by its then chief Baghdadi who gave himself the title of Caliph. Defence analyst Alok Bansal had warned, “no doubt, it is a major concern in terms of the country’s internal security. The IS jihadists have already announced a war in future from the soil of Khorasan that includes India. For the IS, their ultimate battle for global jihad will be on this land of Khorasan. They have also talked about Kashmir. The unfurling of IS flags will give a boost to the radicalisation in Kashmir valley, as more number of educated youth are joining militancy”.

“It is a matter of serious concern for Indian intelligence and internal security. The waving of IS flags does not mean that they have made penetration into India, but it is going to have an impact on local militants in Kashmir who have been trying to control the valley since long. ISI through the Hurriyat leaders has been successful in creating disturbances in the valley. The IS flag is symbolic for the youths who are attracted to the IS ideology of brutal extremism,” counter-terrorism analyst, Anil Kamboj had said.

Even the current National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, after his visit to Srinagar to take stock of the situation arising, observed that the situation in Valley is not normal and radicalisation of educated Kashmiri youth by the militant outfits is a matter of great concern. Despite all this, the state government and the central Home Ministry remained in constant denial mode. Perhaps, they were looking for ISIS presence in the Valley ignoring the fact that waving of ISIS flags was only symbolic but an indicator of ‘take over’ of Kashmir by the Salafi-Wahabi radical Islamists, nevertheless. Sufism and Kashmiriyat, which have been the hall-marks of a tolerant Kashmiri society that gave supremacy to cultural identity over religious identity, have been all but pushed behind the oblivion. The assessment made by many here on ‘no presence of ISIS’ was correct, but the conclusion that there was no spread of ISIS ideology was flawed because the ISIS and Salafi-Wahabi ideologies share common interests except that ISIS uses brutal means to enforce its will. ISI has once again succeeded in hoodwinking our intelligence apparatus. Unfortunately, they ignored the fact that presence of ISIS was not so mandatory to ring the alarm bells because all jihadi terror outfits shared the common goal of ‘establishing supremacy of Salafi-Wahabi Islam’ and ISI was an important cog in the wheel of this jihadi terror. ISI has also succeeded in surreptitiously passing on the mantle of leadership to radicalised educated Kashmiri youth reducing its dependence solely on the Hurriyat.

Let us come out of the misplaced notion that the current unrest in Kashmir is an outburst of expression of anger by the Kashmiris against the killing of Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces. Neither is it due to alienation of the Kashmiris because of poor governance, lack of outreach by the elected representatives nor due to trust-deficit and sense of betrayal between the youth and the government. New wave of militancy, proxy-war, mass protests and demand for ‘Azadi’ are only the means for achieving the ultimate end – one that has been imagined by ISI – and it is this that is turning Kashmir into a hegemonic Islamic state duly aided and abetted by Pakistani deep state.

Even Burhan Wani’s father in various interviews to media-persons had admitted that his son was fighting for Islam. Any further delay in acknowledging the harsh reality will prove extremely dear. Hafiz Saeed is the visible face of ISI and doing its bidding. Hope that ‘Kashmiriyat may be down but not out’ also seems to have been dashed to the ground. Radical measures to de-radicalise Kashmir and for the honourable return of Sufism, ‘Kashmiriyat’ and ‘Insaniyat’ are needed. Freezing of foreign aids to Salafi mosques, stopping the flow of ‘hawala’ money, audit of madrasas including their modernisation and to prevent misuse of religious places for anti-national activities as well as to stop broadcasting the ‘taranas’ (songs/ballads) of ‘azadi’ from the ramparts of mosques are some of the immediate measures required.

Indian state has to be firm in its resolve. Half-hearted measures will only complicate the matters further. Last but not the least, the deep trust that Hafiz Saeed enjoys in the Pakistani ‘deep state’ confirms complicity of the ‘deep state’ that continues to call the shots within the territory of India’s northern province. India should demand immediate UN sanctions against Pakistan and its declaration as a ‘terror state’.

*Brig. Anil Gupta is a Jammu based columnist, political commentator and security and strategic analyst. He can be contacted at anil5457@gmail.com