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

New Twist In Global Warming Scam: Olympic Records Won’t Come Easy – OpEd

0
0

Bloomberg writer Jessica Shankleman is willing to push global warming silliness up another notch with “politically correct” nonsense that Olympic Records Won’t Come Easy in Rio Because of Climate Change.

Athletes at the Olympic Games may struggle to break world records as they compete with Brazil’s rising temperatures caused by climate change.

Marathon runners, swimmers, volleyball players and even soccer referees will succumb to extreme heat and lose concentration during the games, in some cases risking their lives to heatstroke, according to a report released Monday by Observatorio do Clima, a Brazilian civil society group.

“Because of warming, sport will never be the same again,” the report said. Brazil heated up faster than the global average, warming 1 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the last 54 years, and four cities smashed new heat records in 2015, according to the report. If countries don’t deliver on goals to limit global temperature rises to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, 12 Brazilian cities may have to limit play in similar games by the end of the decade, it said.

Even though the games are taking place during Brazil’s winter, the heat may still impede performance, particularly in the marathon where Olympic records have only been broken in temperatures below 12 degrees Celsius. Runners perform best between 8 degrees and 11 degrees, well below the level expected this month in Brazil, it said.

The heat is likely to be particularly painful for athletes from colder climates, says Brazilian tennis player Fernando Meligeni. He reckons European players won’t be used to the humidity, which will make them sweat more than usual.

Math Lesson for Jessica

The alleged ideal temperate range is 8-11. That’s a range of four degrees.

The stated assumption is that global warming pushed up temperatures by 1 degree in Brazil, faster than average.

This process took 54 years (assuming of course it happened, and global warming is to blame).

If the range 8-11 is “well below” expected temperatures, the problem (assuming there is a problem) isn’t global warming, it’s picking the summer Olympics in a place too likely to be too hot and too humid.

The article shows the ridiculous lengths writers and editors are willing to go to promote their social agendas.


Will Putin Again Use Olympics As Cover For New Aggression, This Time In Ukraine? – OpEd

0
0

Eight years ago today, when the world was focusing on the Olympics in Beijing, Vladimir Putin used this distraction as the occasion to launch his invasion of Georgia. Now, there are both indications and fears that he may use the world’s focus on the Olympiad in Rio to reignite Russian aggression in Ukraine.

The Georgian foreign ministry has called attention to this anniversary and to the ways in which Putin acted and the world reacted at that time, actions and reactions that led to the loss of significant portions of Georgian territory and opened the way to Putin’s Anschluss of Crimea six years later (agenda.ge/news/63194/eng).

In the last few days, a Polish newspaper has warned Moscow is preparing for a new campaign against Kyiv (versia.ru/polskaya-gazeta-vyborcha-obvinila-moskvu-v-podgotovke-poxoda-na-kiev), Ukrainian officials have said they “expect a Russian attack at any minute” (qha.com.ua/ru/obschestvo/ukraina-ojidaet-nastupleniya-rossii-v-lyubuyu-minutu/163789/), and Russian outlets have begun to claim that Ukraine is preparing to attack Russian positions (ruskline.ru/news_rl/2016/08/08/kievskaya_hunta_gotovitsya_k_bolshoj_vojne_na_donbasse/).

Many will dismiss these articles as either self-interested or part of the continuing war of nerves between Moscow and Kyiv, but they may be more impressed by the relatively dispassionate analysis offered today by Moscow’s “Novaya gazeta” which lists recent developments and concludes that one cannot call what is happening anything but “an escalation” toward a major war (novayagazeta.ru/politics/74105.html).

If a major war happens and the signs point to the conclusion that both “the Army of Ukraine and the [Moscow-organized] self-proclaimed republics are ready for it, tens of thousands of people will be killed.” It lists as the most important signs the following developments of recent days:

  • “The attack on the head of the self-proclaimed LNR”
  • “The growing intensity of the exchange of fire”
  • “The rhetoric of ‘hurrah patriots’ in Russia and Ukraine, who are calling for ‘a decisive attack and victory”
  • “The crisis in diplomatic relations between Russia and Ukraine”
  • Efforts on both sides to draw the other into an attack.
  • “The rapid decline in the popularity of both the leadership of the DNR and LNR and of Kyiv rulers,” something both are trying to “compensate” for by militant rhetoric.
  • “The widespread sense of an impending catastrophe – a full-scale war in the middle of Europe.”

In such a war, neither side will win; but one thing is sure, “Novaya gazeta” says. Such a conflict will not end with a truce.” Instead, it will be “a geopolitical catastrophe,” first of all, for Ukraine, but then for Russia and many others as well.

Ralph Nader: These Unneeded Instruments Can Wreak Mass Destruction – OpEd

0
0

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has recently advanced a clean energy plan which mandates that New York transition half of its energy needs to renewables by 2030. By regressive contrast, New York’s Public Service Commission (PSC) has approved enormous subsidies for three aging nuclear power plants―Ginna, Nine Mile Point and FitzPatrick―located in Upstate New York.  Estimates of the costs of these subsidies range from $59 million to $658 million by 2023, with specialists such as Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group predicting that costs could grow to $8 billion. New York consumers will be covering the tab via their utility bills.

Ginna and Nine Mile Point are owned by the Exelon Corporation, and Exelon has plans to purchase the FitzPatrick plant. You can be sure that Exelon is frothing at the mouth for this huge bailout that was approved without adequate public scrutiny.  Approval of this plan gives New York State the not-so-honorable distinction of being one of the first states to bailout the aging nuclear industry in our increasingly green energy age. The long-coddled nuclear industry is hoping that other states will follow suit.

Unfortunately, subsidizing the nuclear industry in the United States is nothing new.  Since the first nuclear plants opened back in the 1950’s, taxpayers have assumed nearly all of the financial risk.  One of the most telling warning signs about the real cost of investing in nuclear power is that fact that Wall Street will not finance the construction of a nuclear plant without a full loan guarantee from the U.S. government. The reason for such caution by financial wheelers and dealers is the long history of delays, cost overruns and reactors that never came online. Whether the plants open or not, obeisant politicians pass many of the nuclear boondoggle costs to the taxpayers.

Atomic energy is also uninsurable in the private insurance market. Under the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, taxpayers must cover almost all of the costs if a catastrophic nuclear accident should occur.  Think of the devastation caused by Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island.  Three Mile Island, which experienced only a partial meltdown in 1979, cost approximately $1 billion to clean up.

The case to preserve the New York nuclear power plants is that they are an “emissions-free power source.”  There are, however, much better, more affordable and safer low carbon options that would replace the need for nuclear energy in New York.  These options were not even discussed or evaluated.  A more sensible approach would have been for the PSC to present some alternative scenarios, so that citizen taxpayers could compare the risk and costs of a massive nuclear bailout against significant investments in other energy-generating options like wind and solar, in addition to energy conservation measures.

Consider the absurdity of the complex and expensive nuclear fuel cycle itself. It begins with uranium mining which produces radioactive tailings and dust, followed by the fabrication and refinement of fuel rods, the risky transport of these rods to the plant where they are installed, and then firing up the reactor so it goes critical with a huge amount of radioactivity. The end goal? To boil water to generate steam to turn turbines to produce electricity!

What other method of boiling water has to have specific population evacuation plans?

There is also the significant problem of spent fuel rods which are stored in pools at nuclear plants.  No permanent storage sites exist for these deadly radioactive wastes, which pose national security risks, and which must be kept for thousands of years.

It’s notable to point out that the Indian Point nuclear plants in New York, which are located near an earthquake fault just thirty miles from Manhattan, were excluded from the PSC proposal. Even cautious Governor Cuomo and Hillary Clinton, when she was a Senator, have acknowledged the imminent danger that Indian Point poses to the Greater New York City area and urged its closing.  The 5 PM rush hour in New York’s metropolitan area is bad enough without adding the chaos of a panicked mass evacuation of millions of people.

So what about those who live within the fallout zone of these three upstate plants that will be the recipients of billions of dollars of taxpayer money?  Why is Governor Cuomo trying to close Indian Point while saving these other plants? One explanation could be right out of the classic nuclear industry handbook―hold the state hostage by threatening that the lights will go out if they don’t pony up.

The public was given just 14 days to comment on the bailout proposal. Despite pushback from anti-nuclear activists, the nuclear industry prevailed.  Is two weeks enough time for a thorough public debate on the merits of bailing out the costly, risky, dirty nuclear power industry? Shame on the indentured PSC and Governor Cuomo!

Rather than prop up deteriorating nuclear plants with a huge hand out, New York officials should be focused on phasing out nuclear energy entirely.  Nuclear power has been proven many times over to be unnecessary, uneconomic, uninsurable, unevacuable, unsafe and unfit for use in the unstable modern world.

New Yorkers―don‘t take this lying down. Write and call Governor Cuomo’s office and tell them that you oppose the PSC’s huge bailout to the nuclear industry. And, we hope that some citizen groups will challenge the decision in state court.

Have you seen the print, TV and radio ads touting atomic energy by the Nuclear Energy Institute? Its top executives and the CEOs of the nuclear energy corporations have not been willing to debate publically the assertions in these ads about cost, subsidies, evacuation, risk, alternatives and climate change. I’m confident that Peter Bradford, former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chairman of the New York PSC would agree to a debate in a neutral forum such as the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. So too would Amory Lovins, physicist, author and energy consultant to agencies from electric utility companies to the Pentagon.

Can you, readers, demand that the Nuclear Energy Institute open themselves up to informed debate? After all, they represent big corporate welfare kings that have taken taxpayers for a ride of hundreds of billions of dollars for the last sixty years. They owe you!

Fighting Radicalisation In Bangladesh: A Work In Progress – Analysis

0
0

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

The Joint Forces comprising Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) personnel, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), the Detective Branch (DB) of the Police and the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP), on July 26, 2016, killed nine militants in ‘Operation Storm 26’ in capital Dhaka’s Kalyanpur area. One militant identified as Rakibul Hassan aka Reagan, purportedly a member of Daesh [Islamic State], was arrested from the area with bullet injuries. On July 27, 2016, Police identified seven of the nine militants killed as Abdul Hakim Naym (33), Taj-ul-Haque Rashiq (25), Akifuzzaman Khan (24), Shazad Rouf (24), Motier Rahman (24), Abdullah (23) and Jobayer Hossain (20) after matching their fingerprints with those on their National Identification Cards. Most of them were from well to do families and were missing since January 2016. On July 28, 2016, the identity of the eight slain militant was established as Raihan Kabir aka Tarek, the Dhaka ‘region coordinator’ of Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) who trained the militants who attacked the Holey Artisan café in Gulshan area on July 2, 2016.

On July 2, 2016, in the first ever hostage crisis in the country, 22 civilians including 18 foreigners and six Bangladeshis were slaughtered at Holey Artisan café, a Spanish restaurant at the Gulshan area in Dhaka city. The attack was also claimed by Daesh. On July 4, 2016, Police identified the five terrorists killed in the incident as Nibras Islam, Rohan Imtiaz, Meer Saameh Mubasher, Shafiqul Islam Ujjal and Khairul Islam Payel, all less than 30 years of age. All five men had gone missing between three and six months before they reappeared at the site of the terror attack. Three of them came from affluent families in Dhaka and studied at top schools or universities, while two were from lower income families. On July 20, 2016, officers investigating the restaurant attack identified the coordinator of the operation as Rajib aka Shanta aka Adil, a mid-level JMB leader.

Disturbingly, on May 17, 2016, Golam Farukh, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of the Rangpur Range disclosed that two JMB militant groups – one based in Rangpur District and the other in Dinajpur District – were working in smaller units of seven to eight members and were currently active in the eight Districts of Rangpur Division. Further, the Detective Branch of Police stated, on June 14, 2016, that JMB had around 100-150 trained madrassa students working for them in 16 Districts of north-western Bangladesh with a highly educated 16-member cell supervising them. Separately, law enforcement agencies interrogating militants who were arrested in various operations on July 27, 2016, disclosed that at least two dozen hideouts in Dhaka and surrounding areas were being used to attempt more attacks by setting up small dens. A senior law enforcement official requesting anonymity confirmed that militants were now renting flats in areas where low income populations and garment workers live. Small groups of militants, usually numbering seven to nine, are living in these flats and, some cases, were using family members to rent flats.

Advising all to be more watchful, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, on July 13, 2016, warned, “we have intelligence reports that the terrorists have planned to launch more attacks. We have to keep in mind that this will not stop here. There are many kinds of plots. We are collecting reports of various intelligence agencies at home and abroad.” In a second warning in less than two weeks, during a Cabinet meeting on July 25, 2016, Prime Minister Hasina stated, “They [terrorists] will try to create unrest in August. They are planning something big… Ministers may also be targeted… Everyone must remain alert. Their goal is to free Mir Quasem”. Mir Quasem Ali (63), a Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) central executive committee member, is a war crime convict sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal-2 (ICT-2) on November 2, 2014, for the killing of young freedom-fighter Jashim Uddin Ahmed and eight others during the Liberation War of 1971.

No doubt, the Hasina-led government has succeeded in minimizing the threat from Islamist terrorism since assuming power in 2009. Since then, 231 terrorists belonging to JMB, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT), Hizbut Towhid (HT) and Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) and other Islamic extremist groups have been killed across the country (data till July 31, 2016). Further, urging all parents to be vigilant about the movements of their children to prevent them from being radicalized, Prime Minister Hasina on July 12, 2016, asserted “The people of the country are pious, but not bigots. I simply cannot understand why their children who are receiving education in reputed schools and colleges and English medium institutions are turning into bigots. We don’t want these students to lay down their valuable lives indiscriminately after getting derailed from the right path. We won’t allow emergence of militancy in the country. We don’t want Bangladesh to be the land of militancy… we’ll have to take some measurers keeping this view in mind.”

Remarkably, Bangladesh Jamiyatul Ulama (BJU), a national body of Islamic scholars, issued an anti-militancy fatwa (religious edict) on June 18, 2016, through a press conference at Dhaka Reporters Unity, declaring that those killing people in the name of religion were heading for hell. Signatures of 101,850 Islamic clerics, including 9,320 women, have been collected in support of the fatwa, prepared in light of the Quran and Hadith. Explaining the initiative, Farid Uddin Masoud, BJU chairman, observed that law enforcement agencies alone cannot resist the criminals who are ready to kill themselves in the name of religion. The first thing needed is to dispel the militants’ misconceptions about Islam. Fatwas, he added, are more powerful than one lakh weapons and they will largely be able to curb terrorism. Separately, on July 14, 2016, Bangladesh Islamic Foundation authorities issued circular requesting imams (prayer leaders) of all mosques across the country to recite a common khutba (sermon) during the Jumma (Friday) prayers to create awareness among people against terrorism and militancy.

Separately, the University Grants Commission (UGC) of Bangladesh on July 31, 2016, formed a three-member committee to monitor all public and private colleges and universities across the country whether there is any militant activity. Dr Mohamad Akhter Hossain, convener of the UGC will lead the committee. The two others are UGC members Jesmine Parveen and Mohamad Shaheed Siraj. The team, if necessary, will visit college and universities or colleges and libraries any time without any prior permission of the authorities. After visiting the campuses, if the committee senses any militant activities on the campus, it will prepare and submit a report to the Education Ministry and law enforcing agencies for taking necessary action.

Indeed, the Holey Artisan café attack was meant to strike terror in the hearts of Bangladeshis and foreigners with the intention to harm the country’s economy and international relations. However, the Sheikh Hasina government’s response was immediate, vigorous and calibrated across a wide range of variables, beyond a knee-jerk security clampdown.

Nevertheless, Bangladesh has developed large reserves of radicalization over decades of earlier mischief by complicit governments, and the threat of extremist violence remains real and significant, demanding extreme vigilance and continuous efforts of containment.

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

South China Sea Verdict: Chinese Win Some, Lose Some – Analysis

0
0

By Sana Hashmi*

On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague announced the much-awaited verdict in the case on South China Sea. As anticipated, the decision was in the favour of the Philippines and the PCA dismissed the Chinese sovereignty claims in a 501-page long ruling. The PCA observed that, “there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’”. The PCA made it clear that, “it has jurisdiction to consider the Parties’ dispute concerning historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea”; whereas, Chinese government refused to abide by the ruling and called the ruling ‘null and void’.

There has been a sense of growing maritime insecurity in the Asia-Pacific region since 2012. Seemingly, the reasons for the Philippines’ resort to the PCA were two-fold: first, the 2012 standoff at the Scarborough Shoal between China and the Philippines acted as the primary trigger for the Philippines to seek the intervention of the international tribunal. Second, 2012 was the year when the ASEAN could not issue the joint communiqué for the first time in its history of 45 years. Cambodia was the chair of 2012 ASEAN Summit and it did not allow Vietnam and the Philippines to bring the issue of the South China Sea to the table. That was one of the first instances where differences within ASEAN were brought to the forefront.

Since 2013, Chinese government has maintained that it will not participate in the proceedings. On July 5, 2016, Dai Bingguo, China’s former State Councilor and representative to India-China Talks on Boundary Issues, remarked that “the ruling would be nothing more than a piece of trash paper”. After the announcement of the verdict, President Xi Jinping also proclaimed, “the waters had been Chinese territory since ancient times and this ruling could not invalidate such history”. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi stated that, “this farce is now over… China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards”. Furthermore, China has accused countries such as the US and Japan of instigating tension in the region in the aftermath of the PCA verdict.

While the verdict is a major setback for China’s international standing, it is also a victory for China insofar as it has been successful in dividing the ASEAN. Countries such as Laos and Cambodia have been openly supporting China’s stance of opting for the bilateral negotiations for the dispute resolution. In April 2016, Brunei, Cambodia, and Laos reached on a consensus that the matter of the South China Sea is of bilateral nature and should not affect ASEAN’s relations with China. Also, on July 24, 2016, the issue of the verdict could not be figured in the joint statement of the ASEAN Foreign Minister Meeting due to Cambodia’s resistance to avoid any mention of the PCA ruling in the meeting.

At the substantive level, the ruling did not make any difference. However, it has put enough diplomatic pressure on China to react. Release of the white paper against the verdict on the South China Sea dispute one day after the ruling is a case in point. The verdict has bolstered the claims of the Philippines. It seems that China will attempt to engage the Philippines as well as Vietnam constructively. It has already offered the Philippines to initiate bilateral negotiations. However, as of now, the Philippines have turned down the offer by stating that it will abide by the ruling. Going for bilateral negotiations will weaken Philippines’ bargaining position.

Second option for the Southeast Asian nation is to rely on the ASEAN to mediate the dispute. However, till now, it has been ineffective in mediating in the dispute as well as unable to address the concern about China’s rise and its assertive behaviour. With rising tension, ASEAN’s credibility has been put to test.

Third, the Philippines has become more assertive and has sought the support of the United States and Japan. Nevertheless, intervention of the United States will only hurt the Philippines’ case. This will not only undermine the regional stability, it will also make China more assertive and affect China-Philippines bilateral relations.

The previous government of Benigno Aquino III filed the case in the tribunal, and even if the Philippines has won the case, the current government of Rodrigo Duterte is (comparatively) more responsive to the Chinese. During his presidential campaigns, he mentioned that he would prefer to hold bilateral negotiations with China. It seems, sooner or later, the Philippines government might accept China’s request for dealing with the matter at the bilateral level.

Clearly, direct confrontation, which is less likely to occur, will lead to instability in maritime Southeast Asia. It seems the dispute would not be resolved anytime soon and might lead to escalation of tension in the region. Nevertheless, it is certain that no direct confrontation will take place.

Given that geopolitical stakes are high, so as to ensure peace and stability, compromises should be made by both sides. China has resolved territorial disputes with its 12 out of 14 neighbours peacefully. While China may consider becoming sensitive to the demands of other claimants, as it has done in the past; the Philippines along with Vietnam might avoid involvement of extra regional countries such as the United States and Japan in the dispute. This will discourage China to continue with its land reclamation activities. One of the reasons why China is undertaking such activities is that it feels threatened by the presence of the United States.

The path to the dispute resolution will not be easy as the dispute involves six parties and their overlapping claims. The minimum that could be done in such a situation is to respect the status quo. China needs to take an extra step given that its smaller neighbours are apprehensive of China’s assertive postures in the region. It needs to practice restrain if it wants its so-called theory of peaceful development to not lose credibility. Such behaviour on the part of China will help establishing itself as a responsible power.

*Sana Hashmi is a PhD candidate at Chinese Division of the Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. She can be reached at: sanahashmi2@gmail.com

Exploited Abroad: Indian Migrant Woes Continue In Saudi Arabia – OpEd

0
0

By Neha Gupta*

Saudi Arabia is home to thousands of migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. Being a major economy in the Middle East, the requirement for workers has been high in this country. But since the fall in oil returns have sent shockwaves through the whole of Middle East, the economies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have witnessed erosion of many jobs, shutting down of companies, and resultant immense joblessness amongst the thousands of immigrants there.

Hundreds of thousands of Indians workers are engaged in the Gulf kingdoms and are frequently grinded in slave-like situations, incapable of changing employers and afflicted with extensive racist and religious intolerance. The grievances against the employers today are at an all-time high, with reports of physical assault as well as psychological trauma amongst the unpaid wage workers coming out in the public more than ever.

Out of impoverishment back home, many Indian workers are compelled to move to the Middle East each year for better-paying employment opportunities. They work as labourers, electricians, drivers, or are engaged in other such menial jobs. Their condition of living in these foreign lands is also substandard.

The current reason behind their loss of job and non-payment of their wages for months has been attributed to the slowdown of industries in the Gulf due to falling global oil prices. Low oil prices have strained the Saudi government to cut the expenses since last year, placing immense stress on local construction firms which were highly dependent on state contracts. The workers who have lost their jobs were mostly employed in Saudi construction companies. Although the condition in Kuwait is relatively under control, issues are much worse in Saudi Arabia. The cause behind joblessness of labourers is not merely associated with low oil prices but they are also connected to the widespread social apathy that continues to breed there on religious and other grounds. The problem was initially located with the construction giant Saudi Binladin Group, where a massive number of Indians work, especially Keralite Indians workers. This company was suspended from undertaking new contracts by the Saudi Arabian government as it was blamed accountable for the accident at Mecca’s Grand Mosque that killed 107 people. Salaries that were not paid for months further added to the woes of this jobless lot. A similar case was witnessed with the Indian workers employed in Kharafi National Company in Kuwait who to were not paid salaries on time.

The workers were left with no money to purchase food or move back to India and hence, were asking for Indian government’s aid. The government has in return initiated the repatriation process by fixing the exit documents for those workers who desire to return to India. The government of India has planned to evacuate thousands of Indian workers who have lost their jobs in Saudi Arabia and cannot manage to pay for a flight back home. The Indian government on its part has accordingly started to provide food aid to thousands of jobless and starving Indian workers in Saudi Arabia and stressed on the Indian Embassy in Riyadh to look that no unemployed worker went without food. Moreover, the Indian community there has been tasked with the responsibility of handing out the food supplies.

The biggest problem the Indian government is facing in the process of evacuation is the stringent laws of Saudi Arabia that do not permit an emergency exit visa in the absence of a no objection certificate from the employers. Unfortunately, the employers have closed down their factories without signing the no-objection certificate and have left the country, leaving the Indian labour force stuck in foreign country. The setback additionally lies with the non-responsive nature of the Saudi’s authorities that showed no accountability towards the rights of foreign workers, eventually abandoning them all to an industry slowdown.

The adversities tolerated by Indian migrants came to the forefront with mounting protests about working conditions in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of migrant workers at construction firm Saudi Oger took out a public protest in Jeddah claiming seven months of unpaid wages after their attempt to contact their employers on telephone and emails did not yield any return.

The Saudi government, however, has assured that it would look into the situation and, if required, would punish the companies for their delinquency with fines and other penalties. But, it needs to be acknowledged that investigation will take long and that the need of the time is to look into the problems of the workers who are starving and are unpaid. Giving them assistance in the form of food is a short-term aid; a long-term, permanent solution is needed to overcome this crisis and to avert something of a similar sort from arising in the future.

The responsibility of the Indian government has increased insofar as they would not only have to safely bring the workers back to India, but they will also have to ensure that the workers get their due income for which they had been made to slog in slave like conditions for long. Besides, the government will have to take measures to ensure that the thousands who will be repatriated find jobs in the country.

The Indian officials would also have to converse with the Saudi authorities to see that the awaited salaries are given to the unpaid workers. Furthermore, the Indian government should push the Saudi government to take action against the companies that violated labour laws and troubled the economic, social and human rights of both the countries simultaneously. Right to work and move freely is a universal right; curbing them from getting adequate wages would be against this fundamental human right. It is undeniable that the Indian workers have faced human rights violations by their employers in Saudi Arabia and have been abandoned without money, legal documents and in a condition that has had them starving for days together. Governments of both the countries should uphold the legitimate rights of these workers not only because their employers are contractually bound to do so, but also because right to a life of dignity is a fundamental human right that no one should be stripped off.

*Neha Gupta is an MPhil Student at Dibrugarh University, Assam. She can be reached at: ngupta317@gmail.com

Detained For Terror: Proposed Indefinite Detention Laws In Australia – OpEd

0
0

The reactive dimension of global politics – at least at the level of many states – is a broader statement about how far things have rotted. Nothing is more reactive than a State’s response to terrorism, actual or perceived. The pure evidentiary dimension is neglected in favour of procedural fluff and unmeasurable contingencies. The box-ticking bureaucrat takes precedence over the judicial officer.

The Turnbull government has come down rather heavily in its response to a spate of attacks in France and Germany, deciding that it is time that something be done in the face of this supposed global madness. The prime minister Malcolm Turnbull decided to press the issue in a letter to state leaders urging for the creation of a national regime to indefinitely detain terrorists even after the point of serving their sentence.

Civil liberties lawyer Greg Barnes has made the point that such assessments are fundamentally specious. They lack coherence, dimension and remain presumptuous. The chances, therefore, of a person locked up for years on terrorist charges then engaging in acts of murderous mayhem on leaving, did not compute.

The point is an ominous one for at least 13 prisoners convicted over what has been said to be Australia’s largest terrorism plot in New South Wales and Victoria. After concluding their sentences, the individuals involved in the Pendennis network, led by Melbourne cleric Abdul Benbrika, would have little guarantee of release.

Buttering in the face of such extralegal nonsense is always deemed necessary. The Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis explained over the weekend that, “All of the attorneys, as the first law officers of our respective jurisdictions, understand the gravity of the threat that terrorism poses to Australia and its people.”[1]

What Brandis fails to mention is that such officers also owe it to the legal profession, its servants and the citizens of a country, to reassuringly ensure that liberties are not unduly tarnished, let alone entirely abandoned, as is being suggested by these measures. The insolence of office, one so gleefully embraced, comes to mind.

With that merry insolence, the views of such officers are indifferent to habeas corpus, and the notion that a person who does time has (and here is a novelty), actually discharged the burdens placed upon him for such offences. Terrorism is simply being rendered, rather nonsensically, exceptional, an offence that demands special treatment.

If detention were to be infinite, the hierarchy of punishment would have to be abandoned in favour of an arbitrary notion of convict and permanently incarcerate if you can. This would effectively eliminate the notion of sentencing as having any value bringing, instead, the fictional notion of a hypothetical terrorist attack to the fray.

Instead of expressing outrage at the heavy-handed, not to mention clumsy approach of the Commonwealth government, the NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton, congratulated Turnbull “on this initiative. The stakes are high for NSW: make no mistake. We have more people in our prisons than any other state that would be subject to these laws.”[2] All the more reason, one would have thought, for not endorsing such regulations.

Upton’s shoddy reasoning pivots on mere words: “terrorism” qualifies for blanket imprisonment and detention. Terrorism posed such a risk to the community it meant that no one could be “complacent”.

The situation becomes even more peculiar given the observations by such individuals a Greg Moriarty, national counter-terrorism coordinator and evidently self-proclaimed amateur penologist. All agencies in the business of “national counter-terrorism” were “committed to preventing people from becoming terrorists; to disrupting and diverting people who are heading down a path towards violent extremism; and to rehabilitating people who are convicted for terrorism offences.”

But for all such noble ventures, there would always be those eggs that would stay rotten, where it was “not possible, or where there are significant areas of doubt”. This mealy-mouthed assertion is a neat illustration about executive paranoia, enabling people to be detained at the pleasure of the sovereign.

In Australia’s legal soil, noxious precedents flower that enable the Attorney-Generals at all levels of government to push for an agenda hostile to the detainee. In mental health administration, there are those permanently kept away from trial (and hence a genuine testing of their cases) for reasons of psychic disturbance.

The High Court has also done its bit to add to the regulatory framework of indefinite detention by arguing that stateless individuals can be indefinitely kept at the discretion of the State, a sort of administrative purgatory where risk from the detainee might manifest. The case of Ahmed Al-Kateb remains something of a nightmare in that regard, an outcome premised on the shallow notion that non-judicial detention is entirely permissible provided it be for the purposes of removal.[3]

There was just one problem for Al-Kateb: his argument that any detention could not be lawful if it has ceased to have a valid basis for removal from Australia was dismissed with more than a bit of contempt.

There are also those deemed genuine refugees under the United Nations Refugee Convention who are not permitted out of Australia’s brutal detention regime because they have been assessed, courtesy of the domestic espionage network ASIO, as a security risk. All that, despite having no formal charges level. The proposed change by Turnbull, to that end, remains dangerously, and lamentably consistent with enlarged and unaccountable executive power.

Notes:
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4514207.htm?site=darwin

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4514207.htm?site=darwin

[3] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/37.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=al-kateb

Surprise Natural Gas Drawdown Signals Higher Prices Ahead – Analysis

0
0

By Nick Cunningham

The U.S. electric power sector burned through a record amount of natural gas in recent weeks, a sign of the shifting power generation mix and also a signal that natural gas supplies could get tighter than many analysts had previously expected.

The EIA reported a surprise drawdown in natural gas inventories for the week ending on August 3. The reduction of 6 billion cubic feet (Bcf) was the first summertime drawdown since 2006. Natural gas spot prices shot up following the data release on August 4, although they fell back again shortly after.

Natural gas consumption patterns are much more seasonal than for oil. Demand tends to spike in the winter due to heating needs, and then drops substantially in the intervening months, particularly in the spring and fall. Between March/April and October/November, natural gas inventories build up as people need less heating, and that stockpiled gas is then used in the next winter.

So it comes as a surprise that after a record buildup in inventories this past winter, the summer has seen a much lower-than-expected buildup in storage. And last week’s drawdown, the first in over a decade during summertime, says quite a bit about the shifting energy landscape. The EIA says this is the result of two factors: higher consumption from electric power plants, and a drop off in production.

The U.S. is and has been in the midst of an epochal transition from coal-fired electricity to natural gas and renewables, a switch that will take many more years to play out. But the effects are already showing up in the power generation mix. Utilities have rushed to build more natural gas power plants over the past decade, and now with so many online, demand for gas has climbed to new levels.

Nick0508A Just a few weeks ago, on July 21, the U.S. burned through 40.9 billion cubic feet, the highest volume on record, according to the EIA. And in late July, the power burn exceeded 40 Bcf/d three times due to a hot weather. Nine of the ten highest power burn days on record took place last month, with the other one occurring in July 2015. Average consumption of 36.1 Bcf/d in July of this year was 2.7 Bcf/d higher than a year earlier, and 1.5 Bcf/d higher than the previous high reached in July 2012.

The high rates of consumption from the electric power sector are contributing to tepid growth in inventories this summer. This comes on the heels of a massive buildup in inventories last winter, and heading into summer the expectation was that huge storage levels would keep natural gas prices at rock bottom levels, perhaps for years. But that doesn’t look like it will come to pass.

Nick0508B While high demand is keeping natural gas from being diverted into storage in large amounts, the other main reason that natural gas inventories are not building up as much as previously thought is because of a supply-side issue: natural gas production is actually falling after years of steady increases. Natural gas prices have traded below $3 per million Btu since the beginning of 2015. U.S. gas drillers continued to ratchet up production through 2015, however, creating this past winter’s inventory glut. But the resulting downturn in prices has now made drilling unprofitable in many areas. On top of that, the oil price crash has ground oil drilling to a halt, which means that the natural gas produced in association with oil has also come to a standstill. The upshot is that natural gas production is now falling in the United States. The Marcellus Shale, the most prolific shale gas basin in the country, saw production peak in February at 18.5 Bcf/d. Since then output has declined 3 percent. In August, the EIA expects gas production from the Marcellus to fall by another 26 million cubic feet per day.

Of course, this stuff is cyclical. The first summer drawdown in inventories in a decade means that natural gas markets are now tighter than many analysts thought only a few months ago. Falling production and rising demand could lead to steeper drawdowns in inventories this coming winter. The effect of that will be to push up spot prices, which could induce more drilling once again.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Heating-Oil/Surprise-Natural-Gas-Drawdown-Signals-Higher-Prices-Ahead.html


Army’s State: The State Of The State In Pakistan – Analysis

0
0

By Sumit Walia*

Except for a few years of its history of 68 years, it has been the Pakistani Army (and not Pakistani Air Force or Pakistani Navy, but just Pakistani Army) that has ruled this country – both in direct ways and indirectly. There can be no doubt about this observation, since Pakistan has either seen the Pakistani Chief of Army Staff (COAS) in the front seat holding the wheel, or as the one pulling the strings of the ‘democratically’ elected civilian government. And, no one knows this fact better than the current PM of Pakistan – Nawaz Sharif.

It is his third term as the Prime Minister. During the 1980s, he was supported by `internal wing` of the infamous Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that gave rise to his political career. He became thye PM on November 1, 1990 but developed some differences with President Ghulam Ishaq khan, who attempted to dismiss him on corruption charges. When the situation worsened, the then Pakistani Army Chief, Gen Abdul Waheed Kakar persuaded both of them to step down.

During his second term as PM, he dared to assert more civilian control and on October 6, 1998, he asked for the resignation of the then Pakistani Army Chief, Gen Jahagir Karamat because the General was making public statements advocating giving greater role to Pakistani Army in policy making. After Karamat’s resignation, PM Sharif appointed Gen Pervez Musharraf as COAS superseding two senior general officers. Perhaps, PM Sharif had hoped to have a more compliant COAS in Musharraf, but it did not happen. Gen Karamat’s resignation and appointment of his chosen candidate gave a false sense of confidence and security to PM Sharif. He dared to initiate peace process with India and invited Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Lahore. This did not go down well with the Pakistani Army and what followed was the Kargil war.

Later in October 1999, while Gen Musharraf was in Sri Lanka on an official visit, PM Sharif again dared and decided to replace Gen Musharraf with Gen Zia-ud-din Bhatt, but the whole process ended in a coup and Gen Pervez Musharraf assumed control of Pakistan.

Fast forwarding to 2013, Sharif became PM for the third time on June 7, 2013 after getting a huge mandate in the general elections. Soon came the tough time when he had to appoint a new Army Chief. In an interview given to Karan Thapar, Sharif said that he will go by the book while appointing the next chief. But again on November 27, 2013, he appointed Gen Raheel Sharif the new Army Chief, superseding two others.

History repeats itself when men repeat their mistakes. Perhaps, PM Nawaz Sharif expected Gen Sharif to be more compliant, partially because PM overlooked two senior officers while appointing Gen Shreef as COAS and partially because of Gen Sharif’s balanced political views and his background. Gen Sharif had never commanded any Pakistani Army corp. After commanding 11th Infantry Division, he became commandant of Pakistan Military Academy (PMA), Kakul and then Inspector General of Training & Evaluation as Lt. General. But within a year, it started becoming clear where the centre of power exists in Pakistan.

First major sign came when Nawaz Sharif government decided to begin the trial of Gen (R) Pervez Musharraf. Gen Musharraf was charged with treason for his decision of suspending the constitution and imposing emergency in Nov 2007. Pakistan Army, including Gen Sharif, was against the trial. Gen Sharif has a close relationship with Gen Musharraf because the latter was course mate of Gen Sharif’s brother – late Maj Shabeer Sharif (Nishan-e-Haider).

As per law, it was necessary to get Gen Musharraf appear in the court room to read charges against him. But, it is not an easy task in Pakistan to get a serving or a retired General to the court room. In December 2013, after months of notices and pressure when Gen Musharraf started from his home toward the court, he developed a `heart problem` on the way. Instead of going to near-by hospital, his caravan drove for about 45 minutes to reach Army Hospital where he stayed for next 6 weeks under Army’s protection. During these 6 weeks, civil government and judiciary virtually had no access to Gen Muharaff and Pakistani army did whatever it could to persuade civil government to back off and drop the charges.
Today, Gen Musharraf lives peacefully in Karachi in a compound of 20 houses which are heavily guarded by men in uniform. No one can meet him without Army’s permission!

Second clear sign appeared in November 2014, when the newly elected Afghan President Ashraf Ghani came to Pakistan. It was his first visit to Pakistan after assuming office and he drove straight to General Head Quarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi instead of meeting his counterpart in Islamabad. This was a clear indication of what other countries think about who has more control in Pakistan. And this is why, through an article in Financial Times, China has asked Pakistan govt to give lead role to Army in CPEC project.

Then came the terror attack on APS School, Peshawar which shifted the centre of power towards Gen Sharif decisively. On November 16, 2014, armed terrorists attacked APS School in Peshawar and mercilessly killed 132 students. A cowardly and inhumane act that shook entire world.

On December 17, Gen Sharif & ISI head Gen Rizwan Akhtar flew to Kabul to meet Afghan and US officials. Gen Sharif met Aghan President to inform him that the APS school attackers came from Afghanistan and that the terrorist organization, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is using the Afghan soil against Pakistan. He sought the handover of TTP head Mullah Fazallulah to Pakistan.
On December 25, 2014, an All Party Conference (APC) was called on Pakistan Army’s initiative and it was decided to setup Army courts in Pakistan for the trial of captured terrorists in the whole of Pakistan. National Action Plan was formulated and approved. Soon after that, Pakistani Army launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb which was launched without proper approval from civilian government. All this, aaccording to Aqil Shah, the author of The Army and Democracy: Military Politics in Pakistan, “effectively took away the initiative from the civilians and handed it over on a platter to the military”.

This was not the first or only meeting of Gen Sharif with a head of the State in which he discussed matters related to Pakistan’s national security and economic projects. Generally, such discussions are held between Foreign Secretary or Foreign Minister or Head of the states, but clearly, the Pakistani Army is the real Foreign Ministry in Pakistan. Gen Sharif has visited a number of important capitals of the world like Washington DC, London, Riyad, Tehran, Istanbul, Beijing, Kabul, Dubai, etc. where he met PMs, FMs, Presidents and, of course, his counterparts too.

Recently in May 2016, the Torkham border crossing on Pak-Afghan border was closed because the Pakistani forces were fencing the border post to control the cross-border traffic. Afghan forces objected to fencing as Afghanistan does not recognize the Durand Line. Afghan ambassador in Pakistan Omar Zakhilwal met Pakistani government a number of times to get the Torkham border re-opened for people, but there was no progress. Finally, he went to GHQ and met Gen Sharif and the border post was opened on the same day!

Same is the case of Angur Ada check post that Pakistan’s army built around one year ago to monitor cross-border traffic. As Afghanistan has never accepted the Durand line, this post had become a bone of contention back then as well. In May 2016, Pakistani Army handed over the check post to Afghan authorities in an attempt to improve mutual trust. But, the civilian government was not even informed, forget about taking their permission. Federal Interior Minister got to know about this handover from tweets of DG of Inter-Services Public Relations and from subsequent media reports. His first reaction to the media was that he will take up matter with the PM and will get it enquired but again, as usual, nothing of that sort happened.

A month earlier, in April 2016, Gen Sharif sacked 6 senior Army officers on charges of corruption. This was unprecedented in Pakistan and was seen as a sign of things moving in the right direction. Two days before the sacking these officers, Gen Sharif had given a stern warning, maintaining that “across the board accountability is necessary for the solidarity, integrity and prosperity of Pakistan”.
Analysts see this warning followed by sacking of army officers as a way to bring current Pakistani government, which is struggling with Panama Paper leaks, under pressure. Otherwise, officers could have been sacked following the court martial without making such public statements.

Nowhere in the sane world, will one see an Army chief doing all this. And, ironically, Pakistani media projects it as a necessary swift action taken by Gen Sharif and criticize elected government for not having done the same. It is well known in the different power corridors of the world that Pakistan’s foreign policy is not just influenced by GHQ but is governed by GHQ. But GHQ’s quest is not limited to foreign policy. It is not ready to sacrifice its share in domestic power structures they have enjoying for more than 6 decades. GHQ simply does not trust any political party; they like to have close watch on government’s policy and pull the strings wherever find necessary. It became very much visible when Pakistan’s army launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb and then operations in Karachi and Balochistan as well. They are conducting military operations in every state of Pakistan except Punjab; the province from which most of the Army men (officers and other ranks) hail from. There are hundreds of sanctuaries of religious extremism in the form of madrassa in southern Punjab. Sections of media and politicians have been demanding military operation there as well, but the civilian government has neither the power nor the guts to ask army to march in there.

As per New York Times latest report, posters urging Gen Raheel Sharif to take over the country (“For God’s sake, take over”) were put up in some of the major cities of Pakistan. What was more interesting than their appearance was the number of days for which they stayed up! Few analysts believe that there is no direct hand of agencies (read ISI & ISPR) in having these posters pasted everywhere, but scholars like Aqil Shah disagree. As per Shah, ISI & ISPR are behind the popularity campaigns being run on news channels, talk shows, social media & newspapers. Through these campaigns, Gen Sharif has been projected as an upright, honest and courageous leader who is battling (& winning) Pakistan’s war against terrorism & corruption. One who is leading the country onto right path instead of the corrupt and selfish politicians who are busy making money for themselves.

Perhaps these are the reasons that Nawaz Sharif, after his return to Pakistan following an open-heart surgery in UK, has been championing ‘Kashmir’s freedom movement` and has started waiting for the day when `Kashmir banega Pakistan`. He definitely has something to fear. He surely would not like to see a repeat of what happened to him during his first and second term, and it seems that he would not mind inviting regional and international disapprovals to save his seat domestically.

*Sumit Walia is an IT specialist.He can be contacted at: lt_sumit@yahoo.com

Unwanted Migration: How Governments Cope? – Analysis

0
0

Climate change, shrinking resources, conflict ensure ongoing migration – and governments cannot afford to ignore the challenges.

By Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin*

Governments appear overwhelmed by the mounting challenges of unwanted migration. Only so many options are available, and none are acceptable to all voters. But as the British government recently discovered, surging migration has become an issue of political survival.

During the first half of 2016, almost a quarter million refugees and migrants entered Europe, more than twice as many as during the same period in 2015. Estimates indicate that criminal networks that facilitated illegal entries into Europe, may have earned up to US$6 billion in 2015. More than 10,000 people have died at sea trying to reach Europe by crossing the Mediterranean since 2013. After several masqueraded as refugees to enter Europe and committed terrorist acts in Brussels and Paris, governments took action to stem the uncontrolled migration flows.

In recent years the number of unauthorized migrants in the United States from Asia and Africa has climbed drastically. For example, an estimated 28,000 migrants from India were residing unlawfully in the country in 1990, and the number is now more than 280,000. Since late 2014, US Customs and Border Protection has processed for residency some 75,000 unauthorized Cuban migrants arriving at US ports of entry. In contrast, during the same period, more than 132,000 families and unaccompanied children, mostly from Central America, have been apprehended at the border, with almost all released and ordered to appear in immigration court for judicial review and possible repatriation.

Globally, the total number of migrants is approximately 250 million, or about 3 percent of the world’s population of 7.4 billion people. Of these migrants some 20 million are refugees. Two-thirds of the refugees are Afghanis, Palestinians, Somalis and Syrians. Developing countries host close to nine in ten refugees, with the largest numbers in Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia and Jordan.

In addition, an estimated one fifth of the world’s migrants, or 50 million people, are residing in countries illegally by either having entered unlawfully or overstayed short-term visas. Countries with the largest numbers of unauthorized migrants, though statistics can be unreliable, include the United States, South Africa and the United Kingdom – representing 3 percent, 19 percent and 2 percent of each population, respectively.

Major responses to challenges of unwanted migration include:

Information campaigns: To dissuade people from attempting illegal migration, both sending and receiving countries have implemented broad media programs warning potential migrants of the likelihood of apprehension, detention and subsequent deportation. The United States, for example, is promoting awareness campaigns in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. EU countries have also funded various projects in Europe, Africa and Asia, running advertisements to warn of the dangers of illegal migration. So far, the campaigns are falling far short of their intended goals, as the perceived benefits of migration greatly outweigh the potential risks.

Destination nations: Statistics on migrants in some nations can be unreliable. The UN has estimated that migrants, legal or undocumented, represent 3 percent of the world’s population (UN population data)

Destination nations: Statistics on migrants in some nations can be unreliable. The UN has estimated that migrants, legal or undocumented, represent 3 percent of the world’s population (UN population data)

Financial assistance: Some governments offer monetary and other incentives as well as threaten negative consequences to encourage cooperation. The recent EU-Turkey migration agreement, criticized by some as a bribe, blackmail and violation of human rights, faces legal challenges and may still unravel. The EU is also offering assistance to several other countries through various programs such as the recently adopted Partnership Program with Third Countries. In exchange for commitments to secure borders, block illegal migration to the EU and build temporary detention centers, the EU will provide supportive “country packages” – also questioned by human rights groups – to Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan.

Increased legal migration: Destination countries also dangle the possibility of increased legal migration to sending countries. However, it’s unlikely that the relatively small proposed increases in legal migration are sufficient to reduce the large and growing numbers of people hoping to reach wealthier countries.

Support for refugees and the internally displaced: Supporting refugees in countries neighboring the source country, while preventing internally displaced persons from becoming refugees are among the major responses to unwanted migration. Conflicts in Afghanistan, Columbia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and elsewhere have resulted in 20 million refugees, while conflict, violence and natural disasters have displaced more than 40 million people within their own country. Many opt for treacherous trips across land and sea to wealthier and safer nations, especially the EU.

Border security: Amid growing public concern and the rising influence of nativist right-wing political parties, governments are enhancing borders and intensifying migrant and tourist screenings. In addition to reinforcing borders with walls, fences, barriers, razor wire, guards, electronic surveillance and air/naval patrols, governments are also battling smugglers and traffickers. During its first year of operation, the EU, for example, intercepted and destroyed more than 100 boats, arrested scores of smugglers and rescued thousands of unauthorized migrants. Some contend that the EU’s anti-migrant strategy has turned into a massive rescue operation. Rather than disrupting smuggling networks, the naval operation has become a magnet for unauthorized migrants while assisting smugglers who alert EU rescue vessels of migrant ships in distress.

Relocation to other countries: Several governments block migrant entry, diverting them from their borders and relocating them to other countries. Australia, for instance, sends irregular migrants to Papua New Guinea and Christmas Island for review and processing. Papua New Guinea’s top court has recently ruled that such detentions are illegal.

Repatriation and deportation: Despite official policies and judicial decisions to repatriate unauthorized migrants to their home countries, the actual return ratios are comparatively low and resistance to repatriation runs high. Return ratios of unauthorized African migrants from the EU range from about 10 percent for Niger and Mali to highs of 42 and 31 percent for Libya and Nigeria, respectively. On average, only one in four official return decisions resulted in an actual repatriation during the period 2014-2015.

Digging in their heels: Countries struggle to return unauthorized migrants to their homelands, and on average, for the EU, only one in four official return decisions resulted in repatriation during 2014-2015 (Source: EU, Annex 1, Com (2016) 385)

Digging in their heels: Countries struggle to return unauthorized migrants to their homelands, and on average, for the EU, only one in four official return decisions resulted in repatriation during 2014-2015 (Source: EU, Annex 1, Com (2016) 385)

 

Deferred action, amnesty and regularization: Invariably contentious, these tools are frequently used to address large numbers of unauthorized migrants. The United States, faced with more than 3 million unauthorized migrants in 1986, offered an amnesty plan providing a path to citizenship. More recently, the Obama administration adopted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, providing unauthorized migrants who arrived as children a renewable two-year work permit and exemption from deportation. Also, confronting large and rising numbers of unauthorized migrants and asylum-seekers, EU countries regularized some 3.5 million people between 1996 and 2007.

International summits: Much of the regional and international discussions up to now have avoided negotiations or concrete recommendations. High-level talks at the United Nations have skirted issues of illegal migration.

Governments have a wide range of possible responses to critical migration challenges, yet hesitate due to the complexity of the issue, limited resources, human rights concerns and heated public sentiments and thus fail to cope with surges of unwanted migration. The recent Brexit vote has demonstrated the political cost of neglecting illegal immigration. Public anger at the surge of unauthorized migrants and asylum seekers and the government’s response played a role in the British vote to leave the European Union.

Given the rising concerns over refugees and unauthorized migrants worldwide, governments cannot afford to dodge the challenges and hope to somehow muddle through. As witnessed in virtually every region, ignoring unwanted migration and surges of refugees and asylum seekers has serious economic, social, political and security consequences for countries and their governments as well as for the migrants themselves.

*Joseph Chamie is a former director of the United Nations Population Division and Barry Mirkin is a former chief of the Population Policy Section of the United Nations Population Division.

Capitalist Democracy’s Left-Behinds Challenge The System – Analysis

0
0

Extreme fixes proposed for democracy’s faltering economies and an ineffective political class that’s out of touch.

By Humphrey Hawksley*

Over the past quarter century Western democratic capitalism has flourished, been tested and is found wanting in a hyper-connected world. Global credibility is already shredded from the Iraq invasion, the Arab Spring and numerous exported democratic blueprints that haven’t worked such as in South Sudan.

But now there is rebellion in the West itself caused by faltering globalized economies, growing disparities of wealth and a political class perceived as being out of touch, privileged and ineffective. Britain’s decision to leave the European Union and the phenomenal rise of US presidential candidate Donald Trump are two leading examples of this revolt. That they unfold simultaneously is no coincidence.

The concept of the Western-style democratic system is that an accountable government funded by revenue from the market will distribute wealth thus creating a stable society.

After the fall of the Soviet Union it was widely assumed that a progressing democracy, with rival systems defeated, would be the beacon towards which the world would head and how eventually most would live. That is no longer the case. Too many are living fruitful lives under Chinese-led authoritarianism while discontent in the West has created a critical mass of voters convinced that their system is rigged against them.

One of the key pillars of democracy, the partnership between government and citizens in choosing a way forward, is so badly frayed that voters are becoming seduced by authoritarianism and the concept of the strong leader which is a high-risk option for change. They no longer believe that reform can come from those currently controlling the established levers of power. Trump declared in his acceptance of the Republican nomination before an adoring audience, “I alone can fix it.”

The situation is far from comparable to the late 20th century weakening of Soviet-led communism, but there are too many similarities to be ignored.

The democratic ideal itself is not at fault. But the outdated mechanisms through which it is implemented are proving unfit for the modern age. Rather than feeling more involved through their elected representatives, people have a sense of being excluded politically and left behind, economically and this is not how democracy is meant to work.

In both the United States and Britain the views of voters run contrary to those of elected representatives. Almost all Republican members of the US Congress have been opposed to Donald Trump. Yet the Republican presidential nominee crushed 16 rivals including leading establishment figures to win the nomination.

In Britain, more than two thirds of the elected members of parliament chose to stay in the European Union, whereas 52 percent of voters wanted to exit the union in a decision that’s become known as Brexit.

The gap between politician and voter reflects a growing mistrust in government. The Pew Research Center has found that just 19 percent of Americans trust their government compared to more than 70 percent in the 1960s.

The Edelman Trust Barometer in Britain shows how confidence in government increases with wealth. Among those earning more than $150,000 a year, trust runs at more than 50 percent. But in the low-income bracket of those earning less than $20,000 a year, some 75 percent have little or no trust in government.

This trust deficit is producing a new style of politics in which the economy and living standards take second place to the restoration of dignity. If material gain needs to be forfeited, then so be it.

In Trump’s case, it’s about “taking back America” from the internationalist establishment. In Britain, experts’ warnings against job losses and a fall in living standards counted for little against the belief that Britain was regaining “independence” from Europe. As anti-EU campaigner Michael Gove said bluntly: “People have had enough of experts. They want to take back control.”

A side effect of this is that details, facts and truth have taken a back place to personal sentiment. Both the Trump and Brexit campaigns have been popularized on a stream of misinformation.

Trump’s claims are regularly fact-checked as incorrect, such as saying that America is the highest taxed country in the world when PolitiFact found that it lays far down the table after countries like Denmark and France. PolitiFact’s scorecard has detected that more misinformation comes from Trump while Hillary Clinton stands at the truth-telling end of the chart.

Yet, for months, Clinton has only been a fraction ahead of Trump in the polls.

Within hours of winning the vote in Britain, Brexit campaigners were back-tracking on claims that money would be saved and immigration numbers that would be cut. Lead advocate Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, has long been accused of lying and misleading the electorate about the European Union, yet has been rewarded with the prestigious job of foreign secretary and remains one of Britain’s most popular politicians.”

“In a post-factual political age, reasoning doesn’t reach the heart,” Canadian High Commissioner to Britain Jeremy Kinsman advised in a letter to outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron. “To win, you needed to mobilize convincing passion.”

Not only passion is needed, however, but also aggression. Popularity of both Brexit and Trump has been gained on fear rather than optimism.

Brexit’s Johnson compared the EU to Hitler’s Germany in its quest to create an undemocratic super-state. He and his colleagues painted a picture of Britain as impoverished and angry, controlled by foreign powers and swamped by migrants. Yet Britain has its lowest unemployment ever and during the campaign was set to become Europe’s best performing economy.

In a similar vein, Trump painted America as dark, a broken nation, prompting a measured response from President Barack Obama that this was not the nation he recognized. “We’re not going to make good decisions based on fears that are not based on facts,” he said.

If Western democracy is moving towards fear-driven politics, the dangers are acute as a key tendency is to blame others for society’s ills. Sometimes the target is “the other” – an ethnic or religious community – sometimes a concept such globalization that’s now being condemned by so many and sometimes it’s an unpopular overarching authority. We have seen what happens when that authority is unglued. Former Yugoslavia disintegrated into civil war when Soviet influence vanished, and Iraq followed a similar path with the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

It’s notable that Britain is dealing with an upsurge of ethnic hate crimes after the Brexit vote, and Scotland said it would plan another referendum to separate from the United Kingdom.

Western democratic institutions should be strong enough to withstand the worst of these pressures, but the question still must be asked as to what would Trump focus his hostility on should he succeed against his current target, Hillary Clinton, and where will British anger wander after the country leaves the EU.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Theresa May has been catapulted to office on the back of this widespread dissatisfaction, which she acknowledged in her first speech. “When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you,” she promised. “We will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us.”

For the penny to drop, however, it has taken the imminent disintegration of the world’s biggest trading bloc and the placing of a bombastic television celebrity real estate mogul within a hair’s breadth of the White House.

The pillars of democratic capitalism urgently need to be repaired and reformed. It is no longer the only show in town, and a rival system selling the vision of a wealth-creating, infrastructure building, high-achieving, hard-driving one-party state is now snapping at its heels.

*Humphrey Hawksley, a former BBC Beijing bureau chief, is the author of Democracy Kills: What’s So Good About Having the Vote? His new book Asian Waters is due out in 2017.

UN Warns Two Million Trapped In Aleppo, Syria

0
0

The United Nations (UN) has warned that millions of people could be trapped in Syria’s strategic northwestern city of Aleppo as government forces and rebel militants are gearing up for a decisive battle for the city.

The UN’s resident and humanitarian coordinator in Syria, Yacoub el Hillo, and the UN regional humanitarian coordinator for the Syria crisis, Kevin Kennedy, said in a statement released on Monday that two million residents of Aleppo are living in fear of besiegement.

The city is located some 355 kilometers (220 miles) north of the capital, Damascus.

The pair also demanded a “humanitarian pause” in the fierce clashes, stating, “The UN stands ready to assist the civilian population of Aleppo, a city now united in its suffering.”

The statement added, “At a minimum, the UN requires a full-fledged ceasefire or weekly 48-hour humanitarian pauses to reach the millions of people in need throughout Aleppo and replenish the food and medicine stocks, which are running dangerously low.”

The UN statement came on the same day that the head of the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rami Abdel Rahman, said some 2,000 fighters have joined the ranks of government troops in Aleppo.

Pro-government Arabic-language al-Watan daily reported that the army had received “the necessary military reinforcements to launch the battle,” adding, “A crucial attack on the terrorists was imminent… and inevitable.”

Meanwhile, the foreign-backed militants in Aleppo are seeking assistance from the rebel militants operating in other parts of Syria.

Syrian military sources say scores of rebel fighters have been killed and many others sustained injuries as a result of heavy fighting in several neighborhoods of Aleppo over the past few days.

A large number of vehicles as well as considerable volumes of ammunition belonging to Takfiri militants have also been destroyed.

Syria has been gripped by a vicious civil war since March 2011. The United Nations (UN)’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura estimates that over 400,000 people have been killed in the conflict.

Back in 2014, the UN said it would no more update its official death toll for Syria because it could not verify the figures that it received from various sources.

Original article

An Icon Retires: Whither Anti-AFSPA Agitation? – Analysis

0
0

The anti-Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) movement is all set to lose its most famous icon- Irom Sharmila Chanu. The movement may not disintegrate if she sticks to her decision to end her 16- year old fast on 9 August, but it goes without saying that it would need some serious reorganisation to nurture any hopes of success.

Irom Sharmila’s decision says a lot about long drawn civil rights movements and the impact it can have on the activists if the state decides to simply procrastinate and look the other way. The decision to start the fast, a reaction against the infamous November 2000 Malom shooting incident, was a personal one and mostly momentary and whimsical, without much understanding of how the system works. It was perhaps based on a ‘straight from the heart’ and child like-belief that the state’s security sector decision making is open to emotional pressure and can be influenced by recourse to the Gandhian method. It remained oblivious of the fact that fasting, one of the most popular mode of protest, has not had much of success on influencing major state decisions in post-independent India and such modes of protests have indeed outlived their utility.

Since the decision to start the fast was a personal one, could the decision to end it be a personal one as well? Hypothetically speaking, what if Gandhi, for instance, at the height of the freedom struggle, was to decide to abandon the movement citing personal reasons and his despondency with the state of the struggle? What reaction would that sort of a decision have invited? A section of people in Manipur who are reeling under a feeling of being abandoned midway have some valid reasons to be annoyed with Sharmila.

The more important question, however, is: whether such a decision by Gandhi, by all means the icon of the anti-British freedom movement, would have led to its collapse? The answer is ‘No’. Gandhi, unquestionably the numero uno in India’s struggle for independence, was part of a well established anti-colonial movement that had several other leaders to carry it forward to its logical conclusion. Gandhi led the movement, and at the same time, played in a role in shaping its course and agenda to be implemented by the Congress Party. Nothing of that sort ever happened in Manipur.

Neither Irom Sharmila nor the anti-AFSPA agitationists in Manipur ever attempted to shape the contours the struggle that challenged the narrative of the powerful Indian army, nor did they ever try to make common cause and launch an united struggle along with other states like Nagaland, where the AFSPA is an emotive issue.

Irom Sharmila’s was mostly a personal struggle, around which the civil society organisations scripted their programmes without ever having to make similar sacrifices. Sharmila’s fast alone contributed to the career graph of the some of the human rights activists from the state. Sharmila too appeared to enjoy the limelight that the national and international media coverage brought in. Neither she nor the anti-AFSPA agitationists in Manipur ever attempted to shape the contours the struggle that challenged the narrative of the powerful Indian army, nor did they ever try to make common cause and launch an united struggle along with other states like Nagaland, where the AFSPA is an emotive issue. The agitation in Manipur remained mostly focussed on the Indian army’s human rights violations. However, as the Army sensitised its personnel and took internal efforts to address the issue in the post-Manorama Devi killing (2004) period, such incidents shrunk and so did the crux of the agitation against AFSPA. While sensitising the Indian Army about human rights issues remains one of Irom Sharmila’s achievements, she is equally guilty of keeping the struggle mostly personal and remaining its only icon.

A directionless modernisation programme continues to preserve the police mediocrity which also has an equally infamous history of human rights violations. Many in Manipur, civilians and politicians alike, not surprisingly, distrust the ability of the police in the absence of the army.

Why should the Indian Army and the AFSPA continue in Manipur remains a valid question. Disintegration of the insurgency movements and a significant dip in violence has created the most suitable condition for the state police to handle counter-insurgency duties in the state. While the international borders with Myanmar can be protected by the Army, the internal security duties are best handled by the police alone. However, a directionless modernisation programme continues to preserve the police mediocrity which also has an equally infamous history of human rights violations. Many in Manipur, civilians and politicians alike, not surprisingly, distrust the ability of the police in the absence of the army. Surprisingly, the hatred for Indian army and also a conviction in its indispensability is a truth that goes unmentioned in many of the analyses on Manipur.

Irom Sharmila intends joining politics and contest the Manipur state assembly elections as an independent candidate in 2017. This has been cryptically projected by some as restoration of her belief in popular democracy. However, given that she kept her 16 year-old protest peaceful and essentially Gandhian, her belief in democracy and the Indian system was never ever in doubt. Whether electoral politics will allow her to achieve what her fasting could not is a different question. Her decision to end fasting, however, does raise several uncomfortable questions regarding the organisation of civil rights movements in conflict ridden states.

(Dr. Bibhu Prasad Routray is Director, Mantraya.org) 

Saudi Arabia Projects Change, Albeit At A Snail’s Pace – Analysis

0
0

Saudi Arabia is projecting miniscule steps to reverse decades of denial of women’s sporting rights as evidence of significant changes in the kingdom that aim to diversify its energy-dependent economy and upgrade its autocracy. The steps include the appointment of a member of the ruling family to oversee women’s sports and the doubling of the number of women participating in Olympic Games from two to four.

Human rights activists and Saudi dissidents noted that the kingdom delayed the announcement of the appointment in March of Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan as the kingdom’s first head of the women’s section at the General Authority for Sports, the equivalent of its sports ministry. Princess Reema is the daughter of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the powerful former long-standing ambassador to the United States, who also served as secretary general of the National Security Council and director general of intelligence.

It was not immediately clear what responsibilities and authority Princess Reema would have. Nor was it clear to what extent Saudi Arabia intends to lift restrictions and facilitate women’s sports. The General Authority has long upheld policies that largely ignored women’s sports. It also employed consultants in recent years to develop the kingdom’s first national sports plan — for men only. Saudi Arabia reluctantly sent for the first time in its history two women athletes to the Olympic Games in 2012 after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) threaten to ban the kingdom.

Princess Reema’s appointment was “timed for Rio to get positive coverage. Nothing will change,” said Ali al-Ahmed, whose Washington-based Institute of Gulf Affairs has long campaigned for women’s sporting rights in Saudi Arabia.

Delaying the announcement of her appointment “isn’t encouraging, but she’s all we’ve got to move the ball down the field,” added a human rights activist.

Women’s sports are likely to be a litmus test of Saudi Arabia’s ability to tackle its social, political and economic challenges head on and move forward with Vision 2030, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s outline of how the government hopes to diversify the economy, streamline its bloated bureaucracy and safeguard the Al Saud’s grip on power.

Drafted by Western consultants, Vision 2030 was announced in April. It identifies sports “as a mainstay of a healthy and balanced lifestyle and promises “to encourage widespread and regular participation in sports and athletic activities.”

The document makes no reference to facilities for women in a country that has so far largely refrained from introducing physical education for girls in elementary and secondary schools and has virtually no public sports facilities for women. The government nonetheless is expected to legalize hundreds of women’s gyms that operate in a legal nether land, designating them as fitness and wellness centres rather than gymnasiums.

Vision 2030 further fails to even implicitly address demands by the IOC and human rights groups that women be allowed to compete in all athletic disciplines rather than only ones mentioned in the Qur’an.

A reversal of Saudi Arabia’s long-standing refusal to put women’s sporting rights on par with those of men, a principle that was adopted in 2012 by the West Asian Football Federation (WAFF) that groups all Middle Eastern national soccer associations with the exception of Israel, like many of Vision 2030’s other goals would have to entail a weakening of the powerful clergy’s ability to dictate the kingdom’s social and moral norms.

Those norms, often grounded in century-old Bedouin traditions rather than Islam, are nonetheless cloaked by the clergy and the government in religious terms. They involve among others severe restrictions on women’s freedoms, including driving and sporting rights.

The clergy’s authority is rooted in a power sharing agreement with the Al Saud family that predates the birth of the Saudi state and grants the Al Sauds religious legitimacy to wield absolute temporal power. Rewriting that agreement with the establishment clergy’s endorsement could undermine its credibility and the religious legitimacy it bestows on the Al Sauds’ rule.

Human Rights Watch, in a report published this week timed to coincide with the opening of the Rio de Janeiro Olympics, acknowledged that Saudi Arabia had “made some progress” in women’s participation in sports, but cautioned that “serious barriers remain” in schools, businesses, federations, and team sports.

“Inside Saudi Arabia, widespread discrimination still hampers access to sports for Saudi women and girls, including in public education. This exists against a backdrop of pervasive discrimination that constrains women’s day-to-day lives in Saudi Arabia. Women are not allowed to travel abroad, marry, or be released from prison without a male guardian’s permission, and may be required to provide guardian consent to work or get health care. They are not allowed to drive,” Human Rights Watch said.

The group noted that Saudi women were still denied access to state sports infrastructure and barred from participating in national tournaments and state-organized sports leagues as well as attending men’s national team matches as spectators. Women have difficulty accessing the 150 clubs that are regulated by the General Authority, which organizes tournaments only for men. Similarly, the Saudi National Olympic Committee has yet to establish a women’s section.

Human Rights Watch called on the Saudi government to demonstrate its sincerity by making physical education for girls mandatory in all state schools; ensuring that women can train to teach physical education in schools; establishing sports federations for women and allows them to compete domestically and internationally; supporting women who want to compete in international sporting competitions on an equal footing with men; and allowing women to attend sporting events involving men’s national teams.

“Saudi authorities need to address gender discrimination in sports, not just because it is required by international human rights law, but because it could have lasting benefits for the health and well-being of the next generation of Saudi girls,” said Human Rights Watch director of global initiatives Minky Worden.

Will Russia Reject Neoliberalism? – OpEd

0
0

By Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson

According to various reports, the Russian government is reconsidering the neoliberal policy that has served Russia so badly since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  If Russia had adopted an intelligent economic policy, its economy would be far ahead of where it stands today.  It would have avoided most of the capital flight to the West by relying on self-finance.

Washington took advantage of a demoralized Russian government, which looked to Washington for guidance in the post-Soviet era.  Thinking that the rivalry between the two countries had ended with the Soviet collapse, Russians trusted American advice to modernize its economy with best-practice Western ideas. Instead, Washington abused this trust, and saddled Russia with an economic policy designed to carve up Russian economic assets and transfer ownership into foreign hands.  By tricking Russia into accepting foreign capital and exposing the ruble to currency speculation, Washington made sure that the US could destabilize Russia with capital outflows and assaults on the ruble’s exchange value.  Only a government unfamiliar with the neoconservative aim of US world hegemony would have exposed its economic system to such foreign manipulation.

The sanctions that Washington imposed – and forced Europe to impose – on Russia show how neoliberal economics works against Russia. Its call for high interest rates and austerity sank the Russian economy – needlessly.  The ruble was knocked down by capital outflows, resulting in the neoliberal central bank squandering Russia’s foreign reserves in an effort to support the ruble but actually supported capital flight.

Even Vladimir Putin finds attractive the romantic notion of a global economy to which every country has equal access. But the problems resulting from neoliberal policy forced him to turn to import substitution in order to make the Russian economy less dependent on imports.  It also made Putin realize that if Russia were to have one foot in the Western economic order, it needed to have the other foot in the new economic order being constructed with China, India, and former central Asian Soviet republics.

Neoliberal economics prescribes a dependency policy that relies on foreign loans and foreign investment.  This policy creates foreign currency debt and foreign ownership of Russian profits.  These are dangerous vulnerabilities for a nation declared by Washington to be “an existential threat to the US.”

The economic establishment that Washington set up for Russia is neoliberal. Most notably, the head of the central bank Elvira Nabiullina, minister of economic development Alexei Ulyukayev, and the current and former finance ministers, Anton Siluanov and Alexei Kudrin, are doctrinaire neoliberals.  This crowd wanted to deal with Russia’s budget deficit by selling public assets to foreigners. If actually carried through, that policy would give Washington more control over Russia’s economy.

Opposed to this collection of “junk economists,” stands Sergey Glaziev.  Boris Titov and Andrei Klepach are reported to be his allies.

This group understands that neoliberal policies make Russia’s economy susceptible to destabilization by Washington if the US wants to punish the Russian government for not following Washington’s foreign policy.  Their aim is to promote a more self-sufficient Russia in order to protect the nation’s sovereignty and the government’s ability to act in Russia’s national interests rather than subjugate these interests to those of Washington. The neoliberal model is not a development model, but is purely extractive. Americans have characterized it as making Russia or other dependencies “hewers of wood and drawers of water” – or in Russia’s case, oil, gas, platinum and diamonds.

Self-sufficiency means not being import dependent or dependent on foreign capital for investment that could be financed by Russia’s central bank.  It also means keeping strategic parts of the economy in public, not private, hands. Basic infrastructure services should be provided to the economy at cost, on a subsidized basis or freely, not turned over to foreign owners to extract monopoly rent.  Glaziev also wants the ruble’s exchange value to be set by the central bank, not by speculators in the currency market.

Neoliberal economists do not acknowledge that the economic development of a nation with natural resource endowments such as Russia has can be financed by the central bank creating the money required to undertake the projects.  They pretend that this would be inflationary.  Neoliberals deny the long-recognized fact that, in terms of the quantity of money, it makes no difference whether the money comes from the central bank or from private banks creating money by making loans or from abroad.  The difference is that if money comes from private banks or from abroad, interest must be paid to the banks, and profits have to be shared with foreign investors, who end up with some control over the economy.

Apparently, Russia’s neoliberals are insensitive to the threat that Washington and its European vassals pose to the Russian state. On the basis of lies Washington has imposed economic sanctions on Russia. This political demonization is as fictitious as is the neoliberal economic propaganda.  On the basis of such lies, Washington is building up military forces and missile bases on Russia’s borders and in Russian waters.  Washington seeks to overthrow former Russian or Soviet provinces and install regimes hostile to Russia, as in Ukraine and Georgia.  Russia is continually demonized by Washington and NATO.  Washington even politicized the Olympic games and prevented the participation of many Russian athletes.

Despite these overt hostile moves against Russia, Russian neoliberals still believe that the economic policies that Washington urges on Russia are in Russia’s interest, not intended to gain control of its economy. Hooking Russia’s fate to Western hegemony under these conditions would doom Russian sovereignty.


Political Violence And Sectarianism In Pakistan – Analysis

0
0

Pakistan’s military commanders gathered this week to assess the impact of the massive bombing in Quetta that killed some 70 people and wiped out a generation of lawyers in the province of Baluchistan. They believed there was a sinister foreign-inspired plot that aimed to thwart their effort to root out political violence. The commanders’ analysis strokes with their selective military campaign that targets specific groups like the Pakistani Taliban and the Sunni-Muslim Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

The commanders failed however to acknowledge the real lesson of Quetta: decades of Pakistani military and intelligence support underwritten by funding from quarters in Saudi Arabia for sectarian and ultra-conservative groups in Pakistan has divided the country almost irreversibly. Generations of religious students have their critical faculties stymied by rote learning and curricula dominated by memorisation of exclusionary beliefs and prejudice resulting in bigotry and misogyny woven into the fabric of Pakistani society.

The Domestic Challenge: Too Much Money

“The enemy within is not a fringe… Large sections of society sympathize with these groups. They fund them, directly and indirectly. They provide them recruits. They reject the Constitution and the system. They don’t just live in the ‘bad lands’ but could be our neighbours. The forces have not only to operate in areas in the periphery, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but have also to operate in the cities where hundreds, perhaps thousands form sleeper cells, awaiting orders or planning to strike,” said Pakistani columnist Ejaz Haider in a recent commentary.

The military campaign against Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, whose leadership has largely been wiped out in encounters with Pakistani security forces, is a case in point. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi is closely tied to banned anti-Shiite and anti-Ahmadi group Sipah-e-Sabaha, which continues to operate openly with government support under a succession of different names.

Sipah leaders, in a rare set of lengthy interviews, have little compunction about detailing their close ties to Pakistani state institutions and Saudi Arabia. They are also happy to discuss the fact that both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are pushing them to repackage their sectarian policies in a public relations effort rather than a fundamental shift that would steer Pakistan towards a more tolerant, inclusive society.

“The Saudis sent huge amounts often through Pakistani tycoons who had a long-standing presence in Saudi Arabia as well as operations in the UK and Canada and maintained close relations with the Al Saud family and the Saudi business community. One of them gave 100 million rupees a year. We had so much money, it didn’t matter what things cost,” said a co-founder of Sipah.

“Some Things are Natural”

Sipah leader Ahmad Ludhyvani, a meticulously dressed Muslim scholar, speaking in his headquarters protected by Pakistani security forces in the city of Jhang, noted that Sipah and Saudi Arabia both opposed Shiite Muslim proselytisation even if Sipah served Pakistani rather than Saudi national interests.

“Some things are natural. It’s like when two Pakistanis meet abroad or someone from Jhang meets another person from Jhang in Karachi. It’s natural to be closest to the people with whom we have similarities… We are the biggest anti-Shia movement in Pakistan. We don’t see Saudi Arabia interfering in Pakistan,” Ludhyvani said over a lunch of chicken, vegetables and rice.

The soft-spoken politician defended his group’s efforts in Parliament to get a law passed that would uphold the dignity of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. The law would effectively serve as a stepping stone for institutionalisation of anti-Shiite sentiment much like a Saudi-inspired Pakistani constitutional amendment in 1974 that declared Ahmadis non-Muslim. As a result, all applicants for a Pakistani passport are forced to sign an anti-Ahmadi oath.

Showing Off High-level Support

Sipah officials said a Pakistani cleric resident in Makkah who heads the international arm of Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (AMTKN), a militant anti-Ahmadi Pakistan-based group, closely affiliated with Sipah, acts as a major fundraiser for the group.

Sipah put Pakistani and Saudi support on public display when it last year hosted a dinner in Islamabad’s prestigious Marriot Hotel for Abdallah Ben Abdel Mohsen Al-Turki, a former Saudi religious affairs minister and general secretary of the Muslim World League, a major Saudi vehicle for the funding of ultra-conservative and militant groups. Hundreds of guests, including Pakistani ministers and religious leaders designated as terrorists by the United States attended the event at the expense of the Saudi embassy in the Pakistani capital.

The corrosive impact of such support for groups preaching intolerance and sectarian hatred is demonstrated in another disturbing trend in Pakistan. This is the spike in honour killings that mirrors a jump in lethal attacks on artists, writers and journalists. The aim is to maintain subjugation of women, ensure the dominance of religious rather than secular education, and undermine traditional as well as contemporary popular culture.

It is also mirrored in controversy over the Council of Islamic Ideology, whose offices are ironically located on Islamabad’s Ataturk Avenue, that was created to ensure that Pakistani legislation complies with Islamic Law. The Council has condemned co-education in a country whose non-religious public education system fails to impose mandatory school attendance and produces uncritical minds similar to those emerging from thousands of madrasahs run by ultra-conservatives and those advocating jihadist thinking.

The Council declared in 2014 that a man did not need his wife’s consent to marry a second, third or fourth wife and that DNA of a rape victim did not constitute conclusive evidence. This year, it defended the right of a husband to “lightly beat” his wife. It also forced the withdrawal of a proposal to ban child marriages, declaring the draft bill un-Islamic and blasphemous.

Continued official acquiescence and open support for intolerance, misogyny and sectarianism calls into question the sincerity of government and military efforts to curb without exception intolerance and political violence. The result is a country whose social fabric and tradition of tolerance is being fundamentally altered in ways that could take a generation to reverse.

This article was published at RSIS

Pakistan: NBP Aims At Becoming Preferred Choice For Sending Remittances – Interview

0
0

Remittances sent by overseas Pakistanis play a key role in maintaining a balance in Pakistan’s current account. These are the second biggest source of foreign exchange for the country after exports. National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) handles the largest percentage of these crucial inflows and has been playing a pivotal role by promptly transfer of money to the recipients’ accounts.

Syed Hasan Irtiza Kazmi – EVP/Group Head, National bank of Pakistan (NBP) is a seasoned banker with over 22 years of rich and diversified experience in the financial sector. He has recently been elevated to the position of Head of Global Home Remittance Management Group at the Bank. He was previously Divisional Head – Consumer Banking, Cash Management & Product Development, Commercial and Retail Banking Group, NBP.

Syed Hasan Irtiza Kazmi

Syed Hasan Irtiza Kazmi

During his career, he has worked in various capacities at Pakistan Kuwait Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan Limited, Bank Alfalah Limited, ORIX Investment Bank Limited and MCB Bank Limited. Kazmi has also served as a Nominee Director of NBP on the Board of Directors of various listed and non-listed companies.
Irtiza Kazmi has an ambitious plan to boost the overall inflow of remittances through banking system and make NBP a preferred choice. The Bank has its branches spread throughout the country. The added advantage is that all of NBP’s branches are ‘real time online branches’.

Following are the excerpts from an exclusive interview with Irtiza Kazmi.

Eurasia Review: You have recently taken over position as Head of Global Home Remittance Management Group, what are the facets of your strategy to boost remittances being handled by NBP?

Irtiza Kazmi: The first and foremost thing that has our focus is technology. Technology is rapidly changing our lives on a daily basis; remittances are no exception. In Pakistan, the remittance payment options are very limited; you can pick up cash from any branch or get the money transferred in your account. The global remittance offerings are far more than what is being offered to the Pakistani customer. We are striving to offer more innovative products and services to our customers in coming days.

The second most important thing is customer service. Remittance is not a one off business. A remitter usually sends money to his family every month, that’s 12 transactions per year. If the customer is not getting the service it needs at the branches, he will visit other banks. So one of the most important things in increasing business is customer service and that will also be improved with the technological advancement. If the customer can receive their funds without visiting the branch and have access to his remittance 24/7 that’s when the game changes.

Third and equally important thing is our relationship with our foreign tie-ups. Pakistani Diaspora is spread across the world and they all want to send money to their families back home. We have around 40 plus tie ups across the globe and we cover over 180 countries and territories through our tie-ups. We are striving hard to increase this number to give more options to the Pakistani expats to send money home.

Eurasia Review: How efficient and elaborate is NBP’s branch network in Pakistan?

Irtiza Kazmi: NBP has one of the widest branch networks with around 1400 branches across Pakistan. Our strategy is to provide banking services to customers from all walks of life. We are present in cities and towns where at times we are the only bank. As you are aware that only about 15% of Pakistan’s population is banked where they hold individual or joint accounts and vision of the Government of Pakistan as well as that of State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) is to include as many people into the banking system as possible. We are working for this goal successfully and can easily say that we enjoy the deepest penetration geographically in Pakistan.

Eurasia Review: How extensive is NBP network in Middle East, Europe and North America?

Irtiza Kazmi: We have presence in 17 countries. From East to West, our network starts from Japan, Hong Kong, China, South Korea, to Bahrain and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in the Middle East, to Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia, to France and Germany in Europe and USA and Canada and our close neighbors Afghanistan and Bangladesh. We cover the globe when it comes to the having branches or representative offices. We are continuously working on increasing our branch network based on the business opportunities.

Eurasia Review: Which of the regions out of Middle East, Europe and North America will be your prime focus?

Irtiza Kazmi: As far as remittances go, currently Middle East is the leading contributor. As per SBP figures, out of about US$20 billion that were remitted to Pakistan lately, over US$12.75 were received from the Middle East, that’s 64% of the total quantum. Within the Middle East, over US$10 billion were received from KSA and UAE alone with about US$5.9 billion and US$4.3 billion respectively. The remaining US$2 billion was spread between Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman to name a few. Europe, including the UK sent around US$3.4 billion with UK having the major share of the pie with over US$2.5 billion. As for USA, the total remittances received were around US$2.5 billion.

Having said this, our focus on all of the regions is equal. There are many Pakistanis that are moving to the West and have ties within Pakistan but are unable to send their money through legal channels because of either limitations/regulation at their country of residence or non-availability of easy options. We are trying to establish relationships with foreign banks as well as money sending businesses enjoying global presence to assist these customers.

The current situation in KSA is also very alarming for us as a good number of Pakistanis are facing difficulty in continuing their jobs owing to downward slide in crude oil prices and its overall impact on the economy of KSA. The Government needs to facilitate these Pakistanis on priority as they are the source of the much needed foreign exchange for the country.

Eurasia Review: What incentives are being offered to overseas Pakistani by NBP to use its facilities?

Irtiza Kazmi: NBP does not charge the Overseas Pakistanis any fee for sending their remittance through majority of our partner banks and Money Sending Businesses around the world. There are no charges being levied on the beneficiaries in Pakistan either, so the remittances are free of charge. Additionally, we have recently launched a campaign during Ramadan where we have offered gifts/prizes to our customers for sending remittances through NBP. We also have staff present in KSA and UAE who assists the remitters in sending the money to Pakistan and answer any question that they may have and resolve any complaint that may arise.

Eurasia Review: How does your fees/changes compare with other banks operating in Pakistan?

Irtiza Kazmi: I have said earlier that here are no charges on any of the remittances received from 95% of our tie-ups. The transaction is completely free, both at the remitter’s end and the beneficiary’s end. However, a few of our tie-up partners charge a fee from the remittance but that’s the same across the board and those charges are paid by the remitter regardless of the bank from which the remittance is collected.

Eurasia Review: Do you believe that after Britain’s verdict to quit European Union, remittances originating from Britain/EU may be affected?

Irtiza Kazmi: I don’t think that there will be a big impact. As I mentioned previously, UK takes the lead in remittances from Europe with a market share of 75%. With that said, the only impact that may arise is because of the devaluing Pound Sterling. As all remittances are received in Pakistan are in US dollars, a weakening Pound might slightly impact the overall remittance numbers, but this in my view will be negligible.

Eurasia Review: If yes, what measures are being taken to overcome the potential threats?

Irtiza Kazmi: We are educating the customers to use legal channels for sending their remittances. Rough estimates suggest that remittances sent through illegal channels are equal to the remittance sent through legal channels. That’s about US$20 billion coming into Pakistan through illegal channels of Hawala and Hundi. We are already working on promoting legal channels for remittances to our customers and feel that the media can and should also play its role in educating the masses. I am sure that you are aware that most of the money sent through illegal channels is used for illegal activities both within Pakistan and globally. We want our customer to know that their money is safest when sent through the banking channel and that money also helps Pakistani economy.

Eurasia Review: It is believed that a significant quantum of remittances is being sent through informal channels, what are the reasons people avoid formal channels?

Irtiza Kazmi: Lack of awareness, in my opinion, is the main factor. People are afraid that there are hidden charges in sending remittances whereas there are actually none. The risk in sending money through illegal channels is way too much. There have been instances where these illegal players took the customer’s money and disappeared. People lost their monthly salaries and the worst part is that they could not even lodge a complaint against anyone as they were part of an illegal activity.

These misconceptions come from the lack of information. That’s one of the focus areas for us and we are trying to educate the customer that sending the money through legal channels is not only the safest but the fastest as well. Money sent from anywhere in the world is available to the customer in Pakistan within minutes.

People are not aware of the ills that illegal money sending business is involved in. Reports show informal channels use this money in human trafficking, illegal trade of weapons, drugs and what not. Therefore, the people sending money through illegal channels are supporting these activities as it is their money that is being used in conducting all sorts of illegal activities. I would again request the media to focus on this issue and also play their part in educating the customers in the benefits of using the formal channels for remittance as against the ills of informal and illegal channels.

Independence Day Thoughts: Is India Paying Too Big A Price For Media Freedom? – OpEd

0
0

India will celebrate yet another Independence Day on 15th August, 2016. This independence day and the days that will follow are unlikely to be different from several other previous independence days. Of course, Prime Minister Modi will deliver his speech with his characteristic eloquence and marked style from Red Fort with or without bullet proof enclosure . For a change, Mr. Modi has invited suggestions from country men on what he should say during his Independence Day speech. Of course, thousands of suggestions would have come to him and he may even use a few.

In any case, the speech will be heard with rapt attention from the invited audience and with wide telecast throughout the country.

Expectations from Mr. Modi still high

There is no doubt that Modi has been working hard ever since he became the Prime Minister and has been striving to bring visible changes in the economic and social face of the country. Certainly, he has succeeded to some extent and several positive schemes are under work in process stage. While some proposals like land acquisition bill met with severe criticism, the Modi government has been pragmatic to withdraw the bill, responding to the valid criticisms.

Even as the deprived section of the country men who live below poverty line and constitute around 25% of the national population are yet to feel any positive impact on their life conditions due to the policy initiatives of Modi government , nevertheless, it appears that cross section of the country men are still reposing faith on Mr.Modi’s commitment and continue to expect that he would bring about what some people call as “miracles”.

Negative picture by media

The problem in India today is that more than the positives, negatives are highlighted by the media and discussed in public forum. There is nothing really wrong about discussing the negatives but there has to be a sense of proportion, balance and responsible fairness in discussing the events and developments by the media.

In a vast country like India with population of around 1250 million, undesirable utterances and acts are bound to take place on any given day in one corner of the country or the other. This would be so, since vast segment of the national population still live below poverty line without adequate educational and skill acquisition opportunities and job prospects and section of the affluent and privileged class of society seem to think that they can get away with any wrong doings.

Media has gone haywire

Unfortunately, the Indian media appear to have gone haywire and do not seem to have a code of conduct in reporting matters and events and discussing various view points.

All that is required to get media space for any politician or activist is to say or do something that is obnoxious, which would be immediately highlighted by the visual and print media. There are many good things happening in the country which are rarely discussed at national level and seem to be of no interest to the Indian media. This attitude of media is causing problems for Mr. Modi in shaping a climate of confidence and progress in the country.

Negative noise made by Indian media has now reached such feverish level that Mr. Modi has to personally express his views on matters which really deserve to be ignored by the Prime Minister.

Any abuse good enough for the media

A member of parliament belonging to the ruling BJP made a number of allegations and criticisms against the Governor of Reserve Bank of India who is held in high esteem by many people as a knowledgeable person who has done excellent work. Though it is obvious that the criticisms are motivated and half baked and even personal to some extent, the media has been discussing this issue so extensively as if it is a matter of national priority. Mr. Modi has to speak to stop this ridiculous observations against the respected financial expert.

Similarly, the scientists and engineers working in Koodankulam nuclear power plant were criticized by some activists in such harsh terms as if they are anti nationals and several of the scientists and those who supported the nuclear power project were verbally abused. Media worked over time to publicise such harsh criticisms, unconcerned about the harm that it would cause to the morale of the hard working technologists. Finally, the nuclear plant has been successfully commissioned and has been dedicated to the nation. However, the media do not seem to think that it is necessary to applaud the scientists for their efforts, which are viewed with admiration by several discerning technologists abroad.

All of a sudden, a national debate was started on so called intolerance in India. The media gave so much of importance to the politicians who accused Modi government of promoting intolerance, for which there is no basis. Then, the media stopped discussing the so called intolerance after the elections in a few states.

One of the Chief Ministers called Mr. Modi as coward and psychopath and the media gave huge publicity to such verbal abuse and obviously this was what wanted by the man who made such uncharitable remarks.

There are several other instances that can readily be cited to prove the fact that Indian media is focused on creating a public opinion largely based on negatives rather than positives. Possibly, the media houses seem to think that this would be the best “strategy” to attract viewership and build media business.

Challenge for Mr. Modi

Even after Mr. Modi’s forthcoming Independence Day speech that would call upon the country men to look forward and work hard with scientific temperament, the Indian media and the preachers of negativism are unlikely to change.

The challenge for Mr. Modi is on how to build a positive mood and climate in the country inspite of the Indian media and the free wheeling activists ,who seem to think that negative criticism is the hall mark of vibrant democracy. Can it be so?

Turkey: From ‘NATO’s Anchor’ To What? – Analysis

0
0

By John R. Haines*

(FPRI) — On Monday, the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Gazetesi published the backstory to President Recep Erdoğan’s meeting in St. Petersburg with Russian President Vladimir Putin on 9 August.[1] The report credited two persons for acting as go-betweens in the eventual “rapprochement,” Ramazan Abdulatipov and Cavit Çağlar. A number of Russian[2] and regional[3] media outlets published accounts of the Hürriyet Gazetesi report.

Welcoming Turkey’s “restoration of legitimate and constitutional order,” Mr. Putin said in St. Petersburg, “We have always opposed anti-constitutional actions.”[4] The Kremlin used that same term—anti-constitutional actions (antikonstitutsionnykh deystviy)— in its official statement after Mr. Putin spoke to Mr. Erdoğan on 17 July in the aftermath of the attempted coup (a conversation, the Kremlin hastened to point out, Russia initiated):

“Vladimir Putin…stressed the principled position of Russia regarding the categorical inadmissibility in the conduct of public affairs of anti-constitutional actions and violence.”[5]

Turkish press reports emphasized Mr. Putin’s “decisive opposition to unconstitutional actions”[6] against Mr. Erdoğan’s government, some repeating Mr. Putin’s phrase verbatim.[7] That phrase is also the same one Mr. Putin used after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster.[8] It was echoed then by other members of his government—for example, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s condemnation of “radical unconstitutional actions of Ukrainian oppositionists.”[9]

The Hürriyet Gazetesi account of events leading up to the meeting in St. Petersburg is worthy of a spy novel, and Ramazan Abdulatipov and Cavit Çağlar are among its central characters. Mr. Abdulatipov is said to have taken his directions from Yury Ushakov, a long-time Russian diplomat and aide to Mr. Putin. In September 2013, Mr. Putin appointed Mr. Abdulatipov to his second four-year term as Head of the Republic of Dagestan, a Russian federal republic located in the North Caucasus.

Mr. Abdulatipov ‘s counterpart, Cavit Çağlar, is said to have taken his directions from General Hulsi Akar, Turkey’s Chief of the General Staff since April 2015. Mr. Çağlar’s usual description as “a Turkish businessman” does not do him justice. In 1999, he was a central figure[10] in a covert operation in Kenya conducted by the Millî İstihbarat Teşkilâtı (Turkey’s National Intelligence Agency, aka “MIT”) to interdict and capture Abdullah Öcalan, a founding member of Turkey’s outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party known as the PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê‎). Mr. Çağlar’s private aircraft was used to spirit Mr. Öcalan from Nairobi to Turkey. In late April 2001, he was arrested by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation in a parking garage at New York’s JFK Airport and extradited to Turkey, which had issued an Interpol Red Notice pursuant to his conviction in the collapse of Turkey’s Interbank.

The precursor to the St. Petersburg meeting was President Erdoğan’s letter to President Putin. In it, Turkey apologized for the 24 November 2015 downing of a Russian warplane in Turkish airspace that was taking part in a combat mission in Syria.[11]Hürriyet Gazetesi reported a 30 April meeting in Istanbul, during which President Erdoğan authorized General Akar and Mr. Çağlar to open discussions with Russia about “normalizing” relations. Messrs. Abdulatipov and Çağlar then spent several weeks shuttling successive drafts of the letter (written by prior agreement in Turkish and Russian, not English) back and forth, with the support of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. This led to a 24 June meeting in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, where President Putin was scheduled to meet President Nazarbayev at the conclusion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. The Kazakh ambassador to Turkey contacted an aide to President Erdoğan, Ibrahim Kalyn, to set the meeting in Tashkent. After several last minute hitches—there were problems reconciling the Turkish and Russian versions of the letter, and Uzbekistan had closed its airspace due to the SCO summit so Kazakh President Nazarbayev had to ask Uzbek President Islam Karimov for permission to fly “his friends from Turkey” (whose aircraft, low of fuel, had landed in Shymkent) to Tashkent—President Putin and President Erdoğan agreed to the final wording. The timing was uncanny, coming a fortnight before the attempted coup in Turkey. As the Hürriyet Gazetesi report points out, the first leader to phone President Erdoğan with a message of support was President Putin.

The St. Petersburg meeting, write Gallia Lindenstrauss and Zvi Magen,[12] “is likely to be a beginning of a new phase in Turkish-Russian relations.” It may very well mark the beginning of something wider, given the pivotal Kazakh and Uzbek roles in brokering the rapprochement between their neighbors. There is another, less noticed factor as well: as Mr. Erdoğan met with Mr. Putin in St. Petersburg, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu declared his country would suspend its migration agreement[13] with the European Commission unless the Commission established a definitive date to abolish visa requirements for Turkish citizens.[14] Where that goes is anyone’s guess. What is certain, however, is that Turkey’s traditional role as NATO’s “anchor” on the Black Sea is indeed ripe for revision, exactly how much and to what extent nobody today can know.

About the author:
*John R. Haines
is Chief Executive Officer of Andiscern Corporation. An active investor and entrepreneur, his current efforts focus on nuclear counterterrorism. He is the founding chief executive officer of two enterprises developing proprietary technologies for fissile material detection and interdiction. In a different field altogether, he earlier co-founded a human stem cell therapeutics company that developed what Nature ranked as the second most dominant stem cell patent estate worldwide.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
The translation of all source material is by the author.

[1] ” Türk-Rus krizini bitiren gizli diplomasinin öyküsü.” Hürriyet Gazetesi [published online in Turkish 8 August 2016].

[2] See for example: “Ramazan Abdulatipov yakoby okazal sodeystviye v vosstanovlenii otnosheniy mezhdu liderami Rossii i Turtsii.” Seryy zhurnal [published online in Russian 9 August 2016]. http://kopomko.ru/ramazan-abdulatipov-yakobyi-okazal-sodeystvie-v-vosstanovlenii-otnosheniy-mezhdu-liderami-rossii-i-turtsii/. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[3] “Negocieri secrete. Cum au reuşit Turcia şi Rusia să-şi restabilească relaţiile.” Publika.md [published online in Romanian 9 August 2016]. http://www.publika.md/negocieri-secrete-cum-au-reusit-turcia-si-rusia-sa-si-restabileasca-relatiile_2708501.html. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[4] “Putin: Rossiya i Turtsiya vystupayut za vozobnovleniye dvustoronnikh otnosheniy.” Novaya Gazeta [published online in Russian 9 August 2016]. http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/1705969.html. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[5] ” Putin v razgovore s Erdoganom zayavil o nedopustimosti antikonstitutsionnykh deystviy.” TASS [published online in Russian 17 July 2016]. http://tass.ru/politika/3462009. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[6] ” Putin’den Erdoğan’a telefon.” Hürriyet Gazetesi [published online in Turkish 17 July 2016]. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/putinden-erdogana-telefon-40150943. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[7] See for example: “Putin’den Erdoğan’a: Anayasaya aykırı hiçbir eylem kabul edilemez.” İleri Haber [published online in Turkish 17 July 2016]. http://ilerihaber.org/icerik/putinden-erdogana-anayasaya-aykiri-hicbir-eylem-kabul-edilemez-56902.html. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[8] For example see: “Putin po telefonu obsudil s Merkel’ i Netan’yakhu ukrainskiye sobytiya.” Vesti.ru [published online in Russian 16 April 2014]. http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1483262. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[9] “Ukraina na krayu. Vozmozhnyye stsenarii razvitiya sobytiy.” Vechernyaya Moskva [published online in Russian 24 January 2014]. http://vm.ru/news/2014/01/24/ukraina-na-krayu-232373.html. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[10] One of the best descriptions of the events surrounding Mr. Öcalan’s flight and capture was published in the United States Central Intelligence Agency’s Studies in Intelligence series. See: Miron Varouhakis (2009). “Fiasco in Nairobi: Greek Intelligence and the Capture of PKK Leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999.” Studies in Intelligence. 53:1. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol53no1/fiasco-in-nairobi.html. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[11] A Russian language report about the Hürriyet Gazetesi article stated that the language of President Erdoğan’s letter in Russian used words that were ” stronger than ‘sorry’ but not as strong as ‘apology’.” Mr. Putin, it wrote, “approved the text, despite the fact that he found it a little closer to the Turkish position, because he read it as a request for forgiveness.” See: “Ramazan Abdulatipov vsplyl v istorii s izvineniyami Redzhepa Erdogana pered Vladimirom Putinym.” On Kavkaz [published online in Russian 9 August 2016]. http://onkavkaz.com/articles/2781-ramazan-abdulatipov-vsplyl-v-istorii-s-izvinenijami-redzhepa-erdogana-pered-vladimirom-putinym.html. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[12] Gallia Lindenstrauss & Zvi Magen (2016). “The Russian-Turkish Reset.” FPRI E-Note 8 August 2016. http://www.fpri.org/article/2016/08/russian-turkish-reset/. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[13] According to the European Commission Fact Sheet dated 4 April 2016, “On 18 March 2016, EU Heads of State or Government and Turkey agreed to end the irregular migration from Turkey to the EU and replace it instead with legal channels of resettlement of refugees to the European Union. The aim is to replace disorganised, chaotic, irregular and dangerous migratory flows by organised, safe and legal pathways to Europe for those entitled to international protection in line with EU and international law. The agreement took effect as of 20 March 2016.” It provides for unauthorized migrants to be returned to Turkey and for Turkey to block “nee sea or land routes for irregular migration.” In exchange, Turkey received a payment in the amount of EU payment of €3bn (USD3.3bn). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1221_en.htm. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

[14] “Turtsiya postavila EC ul’timatum po bezhentsam.” Lenta [published online in Russian 9 August 2016]. https://lenta.ru/news/2016/08/09/stop_implementing_agreement/. Last accessed 9 August 2016.

WikiLeaks Claims Soros Told Clinton What To Do To Tackle Albania’s Unrest

0
0

An email leaked by WikiLeaks reveals that when Hillary Clinton was US secretary of state in 2011, billionaire George Soros instructed her on how to handle unrest in Albania, stressing it “needs urgent attention at senior levels of the US government.”

“Dear Hillary,” begins the email dated January 24, 2011 from the founder of Open Society Foundations, Soros.

“A serious situation has arisen in Albania which needs urgent attention at senior levels of the US government. You may know that an opposition demonstration in Tirana on Friday resulted in the deaths of three people and the destruction of property,” Soros says, according to the leaked email.

Three men were shot dead as anti-government demonstrators clashed with police in the Albanian capital in late January of 2011. Supporters of the opposition Socialist Party refused to accept the results of a 2009 election, citing corruption and fraud, when then-Prime Minister Sali Berisha’s Democratic Party won by a thin margin. Berisha accused the opposition of attempting to provoke a Tunisia-style uprising, saying “the bastard children of Albania’s own Ben Alis conceived Tunisian scenarios.”

“There are serious concerns about further unrest connected to a counter-demonstration to be organized by the governing party… and a follow-up event by the opposition two days later to memorialize the victims,” Soros says.

“The prospect of tens of thousands of people entering the streets in an already inflamed political environment bodes ill for the return of public order and the country’s fragile democratic process,” he adds.

“I believe two things need to be done urgently,” he adds.

“1. Bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha and opposition leader Edi Rama to forestall further public demonstrations and to tone down public pronouncements.

2. Appoint a senior European official as a mediator.”

Soros suggested three candidates: Carl Bildt, Martti Ahtisaari, and Miroslav Lajcak, saying all “have strong connections to the Balkans.”

“The US and the EU must work in complete harmony over this, but given Albania’s European aspirations the EU must take the lead,” he stressed, adding that his foundation in Tirana was “monitoring the situation closely and can provide independent analysis of the crisis.”

Several days after the email was sent to Clinton, the EU did send one of Soros’ suggested nominees, Miroslav Lajcak, to meet Albanian leaders in Tirana to try to mediate an end to the unrest, Reuters reported.

In March, WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive consisting of 30,322 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server that she used while serving as US secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents cover Clinton’s correspondence from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014, of which 7,570 were sent by Clinton herself.

Last month, the whistleblowing website published an archive of over 1,200 of Clinton’s private emails pertaining to the Iraq War. Ahead of the release, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the “upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton” would be enough to indict her.

Soros made a name for himself as the “man who broke the Bank of England” by engaging in questionable Forex hedging and betting against the sterling pound – which made him more than $1 billion in one day in September of 1992. Some have speculated that Soros has benefited from insider trading information when making investments. In 2002, a Paris court found Soros guilty of using inside information to profit from a 1988 takeover deal for bank Societe Generale.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images