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

India Brings Paris Climate Pact Close To Entry Into Force – Analysis

0
0

By J Nastranis

The ratification of the Paris Agreement on climate change by India at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, has brought the treaty’s entry into force “tantalisingly” close.

The Agreement, which calls on countries to combat climate change and limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius, will take effect 30 days only after at least 55 countries, responsible for 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, deposit their instruments of ratification.

With October 2 action by India, which accounts for 4.1 per cent of the emissions, the Agreement only needs slightly more than 3 percentage points to reach the “55 per cent” threshold. The “55 countries” requirement had already been met.

India chose the International Day of Non-Violence and the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, who led the country’s independence movement and pioneered the philosophy and strategy of non-violence, as an opportunity to join the climate accord on October 2.

“The country is embarking on a sustainable development pathway. Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi calls it ‘development without destruction,’” UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said after witnessing India becoming the 62nd country to deposit a legal instrument of ratification for the climate pact during a commemorative event on the International Day of Non-Violence.

“There is no better way to commemorate the great Mahatma Gandhi and his legacy of peace for people and planet,” Eliasson said.

Also addressing the event, UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson said Gandhi would have been delighted to learn of India’s ratification, which he said brought the treaty’s entry into force “tantalisingly” close.

“That this step, so full of hope and commitment, occurred on the anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi is especially fitting, given the Mahatma’s enduring ethical messages of humanism, environmentalism and pacifism,” Thomson said.

In a statement issued by his spokesman, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is visiting Switzerland, warmly congratulated India for ratifying and formally joining the Agreement.

“India’s leadership builds on the continued strong political momentum from Paris for urgent global action on climate change,” the statement said. “The Secretary-General calls on all Parties to accelerate their domestic procedures in order to join the agreement as soon as possible this year. Action on climate change is crucial for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and creating a more prosperous, equitable and livable future for all people.”

Adopted in Paris by the 195 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at a conference known as COP21 in December 2015 the Agreement was signed in New York on April 22 this year by 175 countries.

During the UN General Assembly’s general debate, which ended September 26, the number of countries that deposited their instruments of ratification reached 61, crossing one of the two thresholds required to bring it into force. The world’s two largest emitters, China and the United States, had already joined the Agreement.

At a briefing, David Nabarro, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, expressed confidence that the Paris Agreement will enter into force at some point this year, highlighting that besides India, at least 14 other countries, representing at least 12 per cent of global emissions, have committed to ratifying the pact.


Israel’s Self-Obsession Obstructs Path To Peace – OpEd

0
0

By Jonathan Power*

The many world leaders who gathered in Jerusalem on September 30 for the funeral of Shimon Peres, the former president of Israel, are safely ensconced back home. They will not bother much to think about Israel again until the next Palestinian uprising. But the Israelis will continue to only think about themselves.

The Israelis are obsessed with themselves, with their history, with the present time and with their destiny. Every nation has some of this but Israeli navel gazing is something else. At this level of intensity it makes compromise difficult and condemns Israel to political paranoia and limitless inflexibility.

The Israeli notion that they can have this land and no one else can is so anachronistic by any contemporary standards that it is amazing that outside powers, whether they be the U.S., the EU or Russia, have given its arguments the time of day.

If every ethnic group in the world asserted so vigorously truly ancient yearnings to exclusive possession the world would become totally chaotic in short time. Where would the white North Americans or South Americans be?

Should Russia return to the rule of Mongolia, the seat of Genghis Khan’s Mongols? It was they who laid down the boundaries, more or less, of the modern Russian state. What if China grabbed back Taiwan?

If the Israelis want to believe that Temple Mount (on which Islam’s sacred Dome of the Rock is built) is “the focal point of creation” and that in the centre of the hill lies the “foundation stone” of the world, and that here “Adam came into being”, they may be allowed to believe it.

But that the arbiters of the United Nations could go along with this myth for decade after decade at the expense of traditional Palestinian centuries-old occupancy rights is almost impossible to digest.

Even worse is that many of the most liberal voices in the Western and Russian political world who do call for Israel to hurry up and compromise appear to accept that a deal would probably mean that the Palestinians would end up with only 22% of the land that was Palestine under the British mandate, (which ended in 1948).

The Jews and Muslims over a long history did not go to war with each other, until the creation of Israel in 1948. This was the first time in their joint history that they struggled over the same piece of land. (The ancient Jewish struggle for an independent Jewish territory was waged against the Egyptians and then the Romans, long before Mohammed was born.)

The Jews left what we now call Palestine, Israel and Jordan two millennia ago. In AD 70, after the Jewish insurrection, the Roman occupiers destroyed the Jerusalem Temple and the majority of Jews fled to Babylon in modern Iraq. Other Jews went to Egypt. The Romans enslaved many and others were dispersed by war and catastrophe to Italy, Spain, Gaul and Eastern Europe. The Jews had lived by the sword, even slaughtering women and children, (see the Bible’s Books of Exodus and Numbers), and were dispersed by the sword.

In subsequent centuries the Jews were dwarfed by the almighty and ubiquitous Christians and Muslims. The Christians surged to dominance because a powerful Roman emperor in the fourth century, Constantine, made their faith the state religion. The Muslims later surged because of their prowess on the battlefield.

Nevertheless, over Islam’s 1,400 years the Jews were reasonably protected by their Muslim rulers. Like Christians they were accorded the status of dhimmi (protected minority) which gave them civil and military protection. The Jews were rarely persecuted and there was no tradition of anti-Semitism like what developed in the second millennium in the Christian world.

Until the Middle Ages the Jews in Christian Europe lived rather securely. It was only after the turn of the millennium there were some intense periods of persecution culminating in the 19th century expulsions and pogroms in Poland and Russia and the “Final Solution” in Nazi Germany.

Even so in most of Europe for most of the centuries anti-Semitism was subdued. After the Reformation it was Christians persecuting each other. Protestants and Catholics were often at war with each other while the Jews were usually left alone.

All this perspective was lost because of the Nazi genocide. But Nazi Germany was defeated, and most Western anti-Semitism with it. Come 1948 there was truly no good reason for a “Jewish state”.

But Israel does exist. Now it is its turn to be tolerant and magnanimous. [IDN-INPS – 04 October 2016]

*Jonathan Power syndicates his opinion articles. He forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power

Sri Lanka: Over 200,000 Affected By Drought

0
0

Nearly 208,000 persons from 51,561 families in several districts have been affected by the prevailing drought, according to the Sri Lanka government.

According to the Disaster Management Center sources, 69,678 people in Eastern Province, 8,600 people in Northern Province, 8,422 people in North Western Province, over 10, 000 people in Sabaragamuwa Province, and 110, 350 people from 23,000 families in North Central Province are facing a water shortage due to the drought.

They said that there was no water in Kirama oya and Kattakaduwa tank and they were collecting water from wells. Meanwhile, the water in Kaluganga River has been mixed with sea water and the National Water Supply and Drainage Board is taking measures to stop this situation.

According to the Chairman of the Water Supply Board K.A. Anzar, there is no difficulty in supplying water to Colombo. He added that the affected people in Northern Province, North Central Province, North Western Province, and Sabaragamuwa Province will be provided with water bowsers.

Developing Asia Expected To Grow Steadily Despite External Pressures

0
0

Developing Asia is expected to grow steadily despite external pressures and should meet earlier forecasts for 2016 and 2017, aided by resilience in the region’s two largest economies—the People’s Republic of China and India, says a new Asian Development Bank (ADB) study.

In an update of its flagship annual economic publication, Asian Development Outlook (ADO) 2016, ADB kept its 2016 and 2017 gross domestic product (GDP) growth forecasts unchanged from its March estimates of 5.7% for each year.

“Strong growth in the PRC and India is helping the region maintain its growth momentum,” said Juzhong Zhuang, Deputy Chief Economist. “Still, policymakers need to watch for downside risks including potential capital reversals that could be triggered by monetary policy changes in advanced economies, especially the US.”

A delayed recovery continues to hamper major industrial economies (the US, the euro area, and Japan) and the ADO Update has trimmed the earlier 2016 growth forecast to 1.4%, rising slightly to 1.8% in 2017.

Fiscal and monetary stimulus measures supported stronger-than-expected growth in the PRC. The ADO Update raised the PRC’s growth forecasts by 0.1 percentage points in 2016 and 2017, to 6.6% and 6.4% respectively, which is helping to offset sluggishness elsewhere in East Asia. The subregion is now expected to grow 5.8% in 2016, and 5.6% in 2017.

South Asia, driven by the Indian economy, will retain its rapid pace of growth with GDP seen expanding 6.9% in 2016, and 7.3% the following year, unchanged from the March forecasts. India’s growth forecast for fiscal year 2016 is kept at 7.4%, supported by strong private consumption, while the milestone tax reform passed this year and progress in restructuring bank balance sheets should help revive investment and propel growth of 7.8% in 2017.

Southeast Asian economies will see growth edge up to 4.5% in 2016 on the back of robust government infrastructure investment, supported by strong performances from the Philippines and Thailand. In 2017, the subregion is expected to benefit from a pickup in demand from advanced economies and higher prices for export commodities.

Central Asian economies will remain under pressure from still depressed oil and gas prices, low external demand, and lower remittances. Growth for the subregion is now revised down to 1.5% for 2016, from 2.1% seen in March, reflecting the pessimistic outlook for energy exporters, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. In 2017, growth should pick up to 2.6% on expected stronger external demand and commodity prices.

The Pacific subregion meanwhile will also post softer growth than previously forecast, with growth projected at 2.7% in 2016 compared to the earlier projection of 3.8%. The slowdown is due to the fiscal contraction in Papua New Guinea, the impacts of a severe cyclone in Fiji, and drought in the North Pacific. The impact will be partially offset by some improved performances from smaller economies, aided by a pickup in tourism. Growth in the subregion will spring back to 3.5% in 2017.

The ADO Update notes that risks to the region’s outlook remain tilted to the downside, with the external environment still fragile and the possibility of a US Federal Reserve Rate hike leaving open the potential for disruptive capital flows that could complicate macroeconomic policy management in the region.

ADB, based in Manila, is dedicated to reducing poverty in Asia and the Pacific through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. Established in 1966, ADB in December 2016 will mark 50 years of development partnership in the region. It is owned by 67 members—48 from the region. In 2015, ADB assistance totaled $27.2 billion, including cofinancing of $10.7 billion.

Cities: Surviving Floods And Significant Whims Of Weather

0
0

The frequency and severity of the latest extreme weather events in Europe has sent out a strong alarm signal, urging both local authorities and scientists to act. Part of the solution to counter the devastating effects of floods on human communities could be long-term climate forecasting, backed by assessments on the vulnerability of towns and cities

As centers of innovation and growth, European cities are home to around 75% of the continent’s population and use about 80% of the energy it produces.

“Because of the concentration of people and economic assets, towns and cities are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including impacts on health, infrastructure and quality of life, with the urban poor being the most affected segment of society,” said Alessandra Sgobbi, policy officer at the Adaptation Unit of the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA).

Over the past three decades, Europe has seen a 60% increase in extreme weather events. One of the most stunning examples comes from Venice: there were 125 events in 2014, compared to only 35 in 1983 and 44 in 1993. Of these, 7 were extreme in 2014, compared to only 1 in 1983.

Moreover, in 2014 flooding and winter storms caused an estimated €20 bn in disruption to the economy in the UK alone, while damage by the flash floods in Genoa amounted to €100 mn.

“Human action is often the culprit when cities are vulnerable to these phenomena, an example being poor planning or building design in risk-prone areas,” added Sgobbi.

Experts estimate that, unless action is taken now, the economic costs to EU cities could exceed €190 bn annually by 2070.

In France 23 urban areas have over 100,000 inhabitants settled in flood zones. “Cities represent the biggest stakes, but every community has its specific means to manage the risk and some are better prepared than others,” said Yann Eglin, risk management engineer at the National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (IRSTEA) in France.

Paris was one of the French cities that suffered considerable damage after the heavy rainfalls in early June 2016. Electricity grids, the basement of Louvre museum, part of the metro system and rail lines were affected.

“Whenever there is flooding, rescue teams need to know all the points where water may enter into the underground transport network, so that they can deploy devices to protect station entrances, air vents and any other duct likely to let water in,” said Charles Perrin, hydrologist at IRSTEA.

Scientists stress the need for planning and preparation to avoid time-wasting when a flood alert is issued. “A well anticipated crisis can often mean that many lives and properties are saved. Preparing the return to normality is equally important. This is what makes a city resilient,” said Eglin.

The scientific community is trying to come up with the necessary mechanism to protect against the severe weather conditions. In this context, European researchers and experts are working on a project called RAIN, focused on developing a series of mitigation tools to enhance the security of the pan-European infrastructure networks, such as transport, energy and telecommunication systems. The Helsinki floods of 2005 are one of their case-studies.

“An important step is to be able to carry out long-term risk assessments, scenario analysis and forecasting. This will help planning and implementation processes and allow us to develop a comprehensive picture of current and future climate change risks while managing the associated uncertainty,” stated Beatriz Yordi, head of the Adaptation Unit in the DG Climate Action.

At the prevention level, scientists must make sure that the forecasting tools are adapted to the potential changes in rivers and seas. At the mitigation level, decision makers need to determine how the climate interacts with socio-economic factors, including changes in urbanization and demographics.

Sudan: UN Unable To Fully Investigate Chemical Weapons Allegations

0
0

By Lindah Mogeni

The UN has only limited access to Jebel Marra, the location in Sudan where Amnesty International alleges Sudanese government forces have used chemical weapons, UN Peacekeeping Chief Herve Ladsous said here Tuesday.

‘’We have not come across any evidence regarding the use of chemical weapons in Jebel Marra,’’ Ladsous told the UN Security Council, noting that UN mission’s consistently restricted access into Jebel Marra has hindered effective monitoring and reporting.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has also assessed that no conclusions regarding Amnesty’s conclusions can be made without further investigation.

In a report released on September 30, Amnesty pointed to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Sudanese government forces against civilians in Darfur, resulting in an estimated 200-250 deaths since January 2016.

Amnesty alleges that chemical weapons have been deliberately targeted towards civilians in the remote region of Jebel Marra in Darfur at least 30 times in the past eight months.

The Amnesty investigation was conducted remotely, from outside Jebel Marra, mostly due to access restrictions. It therefore relied upon satellite imagery, extensive interviews, and expert analyses of survivors’ injuries.

According to the report, interviewed survivors witnessed a ‘’poisonous black smoke that gradually changed colour and smelled putrid’’ during the attacks in their villages.

“It smells like someone burning plastic, mixed with the smell of rotten eggs…”said Kobei, a senior armed opposition group commander, in an interview in the report.

Disturbing images from the investigation show injuries ranging from weeping blisters, bloody lesions and darkened skin peeling off. Other reported injuries include eye problems, severe respiratory problems, involuntary seizures, red urine, miscarriages, bloody vomiting and diarrhea.

The report mentioned that children were generally more affected than adults after the alleged exposure. Further, injured survivors have had ‘’no access to adequate medical care.”

Both chemical weapons experts who reviewed the evidence stated that the victims experienced a variety of symptoms that “strongly suggest an exposure to chemical weapon agents.”

Identifying the specific chemical agents requires collecting samples from those allegedly exposed, from the environment and from weapon remnants used during the attacks. Given the severe access restrictions into Jebel Marra, Amnesty have not been able to do this.

Sudan is currently a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention that bans the use of chemical weapons.

The Sudanese government has refuted the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Jebel Marra and said that it will to cooperate with the OPCW investigation.

In a letter dated 27 September 2016, Sudan’s Minister of Justice, Awad Hassan Elnour, said that the evidence in the report is “unreliable, contradictory and unsubstantiated ’’ and alleged that ‘’the survivors and witnesses in the report were either members of the opposition or influenced under fear.”

Elnour questioned whether the satellite imaging relied on in the report showed government forces wearing protective suits and helmets against chemical weapons as they stood on the very ground supposed to be targeted with such weapons. She additionally questioned the alleged death toll of 200 people, considering no such information was available in any health centers in the country.

The report however alleges that the chemicals were released primarily through air bombs and rockets and that the victims had no access to medical treatment.

Peacekeepers from the UN-African Union force in Darfur have been denied access into Jebel Marra where the alleged chemical weapon attacks occurred, according to Ladsous, in his briefing to the UN Security Council on October 4.

South Africa, Namibia To Push For Stronger Ties

0
0

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma will on Friday host Namibian President Hage Geingob, who will be in the country for the 2nd Session of the South Africa-Namibia Bi-National Commission (BNC).

The main objective of the BNC will be to coordinate and facilitate bilateral cooperation between the two countries, the Presidency said on Tuesday. The two delegations will assess progress in the implementation of bilateral projects and exchange views on issues of common concern.

The two neighbouring countries elevated their structured bilateral mechanism to the level of the Bi-National Commission in 2013, which is presided over by the Heads of State. They enjoy strong political, economic and social relations, covering a wide range of areas. These include transport, trade and investment, health, education, environmental issues, water, science and technology, agriculture, justice, immigration, energy, finance, culture, security and sport.

South Africa is the source of 66% of Namibia’s imports and is responsible for approximately 80% of investments in key industries such as mining, retail, banking agriculture and insurance, among others.

Namibia’s main exports to South Africa include beverages, livestock, meat products, fish and minerals. South Africa’s exports consist of vehicles, machinery, pharmaceuticals, processed food, clothing, cement, petroleum and petroleum products, and iron and steel.

Imports from Namibia stood at R6 481 614 826, while exports to Namibia were at a value of R52 862 722 906 last year.

President Zuma will be accompanied by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane; Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies, Water and Sanitation Minister Nomvula Mokonyane; Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor; Agriculture Minister Senzeni Zokwana; Defence and Military Veterans Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and Higher Education and Training Minister Blade Nzimande.

Georgia Seeks To Engage Ethnic Vote

0
0

By Saddam Aliyev and Edita Badasyan*

On the eve of Georgia´s October 8 parliamentary elections, political parties have been courting the rural minority vote more than ever before.

Although ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Georgia have traditionally cast their votes for the ruling party of the day, experts say this is likely to be different this time.

According to the 2014 census, 233,000 ethnic Azerbaijanis and 168,100 Armenians live in Georgia, around 14 per cent of the total population. Most live in the Samtskhe-Javakheti, Kvemo Kartli and Kakheti regions in the south and east of the country.

While Armenians and Azerbaijanis living in Tbilisi and other large cities tend to be fairly well integrated, this is not the case with the minorities in the countryside.

“Before… the majority voted for the party in power,” said Giorgi Sordia, director of the Tbilisi-based NGO Centre for Research of Ethnicity and Multiculturalism. “This was because of the undeveloped political culture. The party that was in power was associated by them with the state and this is how they expressed their loyalty to the state.”

This tradition began to change after the opposition won the 2012 parliamentary elections.

Sordia said he had noticed a greater sense of activity when recently visiting ethnic minority communities the regions of Kvemo Kartli, Adjara, Kakheti and Samtskhe-Javakheti.

“They have an interest in participating in the elections because there are expectations for change,” he said.

“Now, the authorities of the ruling party will no longer receive 90 per cent support of the ethnic minorities,” Sordia said.

Local teachers and officials have traditionally held enormous authority in village communities, particularly among Azerbaijanis. When they told people who to vote for, villagers listen and do as they are told.

Since 2014, the younger generation has become more aware of their rights and more assertive.

“We can say that we were forced to vote for the ruling party in the past, but after the last elections, everything has changed and the people have woken up,” said Senan Kurbano, a student from the village of Talavera in the Bolnisi district.

“Everything changed after the last elections thanks to the activity of the main parties – the United National Movement and the Georgian Dream coalition – as voters, officials and teachers started to have conflicts of interests and began to support different parties,” Kurbano explained.

“I will vote, but certainly not for the older candidates,” added Nina, 32, from Akhalkalaki. “Honestly, I am tired of seeing all the same faces in the same places. If we choose the old candidates, then nothing will change here.

“We are tired of the clan system, which also supports the Georgian authorities,” she continued. “We need an innovator, because we need change.”

There are 42 political parties taking part in the election. Of these, 25 will compete separately and the remaining 17 are distributed into six blocs.

Georgia has a unicameral parliament with 150 seats, of which 77 are filled by proportional representation. The other 73 are elected using a first-past-the-post system. Lawmakers serve a four-year term.

The country is divided into 73 districts, each of which elects a member of parliament by direct voting. A further 77 lawmakers are voted in via proportional party lists.

According to the Central Election Commission (CEC), ethnic minorities make up the majorities in 12 of the country´s 73 districts.

The population in these areas is either predominantly Armenian or Azeri or mixed with Georgian.

A CEC representative, Sophia Sichinava, told journalists and NGOs on September 19 that the CEC had prepared ethnic minority representatives as potential members of the precinct election commissions.

One of the most acute problems among ethnic minority voters is their lack of knowledge of Georgian, the state language.

Thus Armenian and Azeri-speakers have been employed In the CEC´s information centre so that voters can receive the material they need in their own language. Information and video materials appear translated into Armenian and Azeri on the CEC´s website.

According to the CEC, there are 207 Georgian-Azerbaijani precinct election commissions, 133 Georgian-Armenian precinct election commissions and four Georgian-Armenian-Azerbaijani precinct election commissions.

HOPES OF SUCCESS

Rima Gharibyan is a representative of the Open Borders NGO in the town of Akhalkalaki in Georgia’s southern region of Samtskhe-Javakheti.

She said that not only had candidates from various opposition parties come to the region and to fight for the ethnic minority vote, two local people had been nominated by local initiative groups as candidates. Such a move was unprecedented.

The opposition parties had hope of success in the regions, whereas four years ago when the last parliamentary polls were held they did not, Gharibyan continued.

“Today, in contrast to previous parliamentary elections, people are interested and they go and meet with opposition candidates. In the past, only journalists went to the [meetings with] opposition candidates,” she said.

The current parliament has three ethnic Armenian deputies – Ruslan Poghosyan and Henzel Mkoyan from Georgian Dream and Samvel Petrosyan, an independent. Another three deputies are ethnic Azerbaijanis – Mahir Darziev and Ali Mamedov of the Georgian Dream coalition and Azer Suleymanov of the United National Movement.

Some members of ethnic minorities are running on party lists in the upcoming election.

Of the more than 850 candidates competing for the 73 mandates, 12 are ethnic Armenians and 22 Azerbaijanis. Among the candidates in the proportional vote are six Armenians and six Azerbaijanis.

However, lawmakers from ethnic minorities have a reputation for being inactive and failing to promoting special community interests.

Many locals complain that the authorities pay no attention to those living in the countryside and where little ever changes. There are few opportunities for young people and a lack of cinemas, theatres and cultural centres.

People in these areas also worry about poor roads, problems with water and gas supply as well as healthcare.

Although the ethnic vote is likely to be mobilised, it will take time to overcome these perceptions.

Pavel lives in Ninotsminda, a district centre in the region of Samtskhe-Javakheti where many Armenians live.

The town is in full election mode, with party political posters hung in the streets and slogans daubed on walls.

Pavel said he will definitely vote although he is sceptical about the results.

“Since we are a small city and region, everyone knows each other. I have heard that those who want to be in the opposition or want to give them their voice have been warned that there will be problems later,” he said.

“But opposition parties are generally passive,” Pavel added. “The residents have no information about them, who they are, what their programme is. Honestly, we do not believe in fundamental and real changes.”

*Saddam Aliyev and Edita Badasyan are IWPR trained journalists in Georgia. This article was published at IWPR’s CRS 826


Macedonia: Ruling Party Blocks Laws Aiding Prosecutors

0
0

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

The legal changes failed to pass on Tuesday after only about 30 MPs in the 123-seat parliament, mainly from the opposition Social Democrats, SDSM, voted in favour.

The proposed changes to the Law on Special Prosecution were intended to remove the prosecutors’ June 2016 deadline for investigations, while changes to the Law on Witness Protection were aimed at improving the security of witnesses.

Although the bills theoretically had a chance to pass, despite the opposition from the ruling VMRO DPMNE, MPs from the junior ruling party, the Democratic Union for Integration, who previously hinted they would support them, were largely absent from the parliamentary session.

SDSM MP Petre Silegov had called on ruling party MPs to vote for the two bills, arguing that it was “in the interest of the ruling party” to allow the Special Prosecution, SJO to do its work and prove all the allegations about wrongdoing by top VMRO DPMNE officials were wrong.

In February 2015, the opposition started releasing batches of covertly recorded tapes, which it said showed that the VMRO DPMNE-led government had been behind the illegal surveillance of some 20,000 people, including ministers.

It also said the tapes proved many criminal allegations against government members, including election rigging.

The revelation of the tapes sparked a deep political crisis that is still ongoing.

VMRO DPMNE chief Nikola Gruevski, who was prime minister from 2006 until he resigned earlier this year under an EU-brokered deal aimed at ending the crisis, has said the tapes were “fabricated” by unnamed foreign intelligence services and given to the opposition to destabilise the country.

The SJO was established last year as a result of the EU-brokered deal to investigate high-level crime and corruption.

VMRO DPMNE MP Ilija Dimovski told media after the vote that his party did not support the two bills because it was dissatisfied by the SJO’s recent moves.

He said that the party was offended by the chief special prosecutor Katica Janeva’s recent statement, during her hearing in parliament last month, when she said that the assembly was possibly illegitimate, due to an ongoing investigation by the SJO into electoral irregularities.

The ruling party also felt insulted by Janeva’s rejection of its request to submit an additional financial report on the SJO’s spending of almost one million euros. Janeva insisted that such a report could jeopardize their ongoing investigations.

The opposition, in the name of the SJO, has asked parliament to prolong the June 2017 deadline for the SJO to investigate all its cases and press charges, saying that obstructions had made extra time necessary.

“We have lost three months waiting for the approval of the [SJO’s] budget and the formation of the office. Then we lost another three due to the president’s pardoning [of top-ranking politicians and their associates],” an informed source inside the SJO told BIRN last week.

“We also lost additional time in moving because we got our offices one year late, and not immediately as it was envisaged,” the source added.

On April 12, President Gjorge Ivanov used his presidential right to issue pardons to halt criminal investigations into a number of top politicians and their associates, including VMRO DPMNE leader and former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski. He later retracted the controversial pardons under foreign and local pressure.

The opposition asked for amendments to the Law on Witness Protection after the SJO said it will improve security for witnesses – which could prove key to the investigations of some high-profile cases.

The SJO wants to have full jurisdiction over decisions about who should be placed under the protected witness programme, in order to better ensure their safety.

The law currently places such decisions in the hands of a five-member council, which comprises representatives of the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecution, the Justice Ministry and two representatives from the Interior Ministry.

The SJO has so far launched six investigations.

On September 15, it raised its first indictments in two cases but many more cases are in the pre-investigation phase.

Saudi Arabia Conducting Live-Fire War Games

0
0

Saudi Arabia is conducting live-fire drills during war games under way in the Gulf as tensions simmer with Iran.

“Exercise Gulf Shield 1 has begun with naval ships, aircraft, marines and “special units,” the Saudi Press Agency said.

The maneuvers are also taking place in the strategic Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman.

Navy Commodore Majid Al-Qahtani said the exercises include “shooting of live ammunition” as part of the effort to improve combat readiness and protect the kingdom’s waters “against any possible aggression.”

Saudi Arabia and Iran — which lie on opposite sides of the Gulf — have no diplomatic relations and are at odds over regional issues including the wars in Syria and Yemen.

The Royal Saudi Navy says the latest exercise is part of a series.

Egypt: Senior Muslim Brotherhood Member Killed In Military Raid

0
0

A senior Muslim Brotherhood figure has been killed along with his bodyguard during an exchange of fire with security forces, according to an Interior Ministry statement on Monday night.

The ministry said security forces raided a flat in which Mohamed Kamal was hiding, prompting Kamal and his bodyguard Yasser Shehata to open fire. The two men were killed in the resulting exchange of fire.

The statement defined Kamal as a leader within the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, describing him as the number-one official responsible for armed groups affiliated with the Brotherhood. Kamal was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau, the group’s governing body.

According to the statement, Kamal had been convicted twice of forming armed groups responsible for hostile acts against state institutions, in both cases receiving life sentences.

Kamal was the mastermind behind the assassination of former top prosecutor Hesham Barakat, police colonel Wael Tahon, and others, the statement said.

Kamal’s guard Shehata, who was killed at the same incident, was responsible for communicating Kamal’s orders to the armed groups. He had been convicted in his hometown of Assiut on charges of physical assault and the illegal detention of a man in the office of the Freedom and Justice Party, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The ministry statement said that during Monday’s raid on the hideout, security forces found an automatic weapon, a pistol, ammunition, and papers pertaining their work.

Al Masri Al Youm, original source

India: Do Muslims Need Assertive Movement For Freedom From Islamists’ Siege? – OpEd

0
0

By R. Upadhyay

Addressing the Kozhikode conclave of the BJP in Kerala on September 25, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked the political parties not to consider Muslims as “vote bank or commodities”.

Separately, the Minority Affairs Ministry decided to hold ‘Minority (Read Muslim) Panchayat’ all over the country to apprise the latter of the welfare schemes of the government for them. The opposition parties have however viewed the move as a part of vote-bank politics particularly on the eve of U. P. Assembly election next year. But what needs to be said is that perhaps for the first time in the post-Independence history of Indian Muslims, the chief executive of the country has raised this hard reality about the second largest religious majority and asked the people to treat them as ‘ours’.

It is too early to make an assessment whether the appeal of Prime Minister will be responded to by the political parties as well as Muslims and translated into action. Do we go by the Islamic history in the sub-continent that suggests that even after Independence, the latter remained under the siege of their Islamist leaders? Or whether they would realise the need for an assertive movement for freedom from the Islamists? These are the issues that need to be addressed today.

Unfortunately, no attempt has ever been made either by the community leaders or by the political parties to launch a movement for their freedom from the Islamists who have repeatedly reminded their community members that “they have ruled the country before and can rule it again, mercifully using the constitutional methods of vote-bank politics”.( hindunet.org/hvk/articles/1008/1.html)

Muslims as a religion-centric society became a demoralised group after partition as they lost their exclusive political identity and bargaining power, which they enjoyed in British India. On the other hand, Muslim-centric political parties namely Indian Union Muslim League and Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen with their influence confined to Malabar region of Kerala and old city of Hyderabad respectively and National Conference and PDP in Kashmir valley had no significant presence at the national level. But with new ethos of constitutional privilege to the minority communities, the Congress party tried to make the Muslims feel that they are more important now than in British India.

Since then, the Muslim leaders for their self-seeking interest for sharing political power treated their community members as market commodity and bargained with various political parties during election time. The minority-majority syndrome virtually vindicated the divisive policy of the British recognising the political distinctiveness of the Muslims, which was however contrary to the democratic concept in a pluralistic society of India.

Factually, the grammar of vote bank politics in India is a political reality ever since Independence. With the spread of regionalism, proliferation of political parties and unprincipled alliance, elections in India are hardly contested on the basis of political and nationalist ideology. Almost all the political parties distorted this vote bank politics according to their political convenience. Although, its character varied from state to state on the basis of caste, ethnicity, language and regional factors, the Muslims as a consolidated religious group with about 20% of country’s population remained a most sought after group at the all India level in election time. Needless to say the election promises were soon forgotten and the Muslims were left to fend for themselves!

The history of the communal polarisation of Muslims in Indian sub-continent started with national renaissance movement particularly after the advent of British rule but politicisation of this communally organised socio-religious group got a momentum when the Muslim leaders looked at the formation of Indian National Congress in 1885 not for political rights of Indians as such but more for a separate identity from the Hindu main stream.

Ignoring the efforts of nationalist leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lajpat Roy, Aurobindo and Vivekanand, who tried their best for Muslims’ political integration in Indian society, the common Muslims played into the hands of their community leaders under the patronage of the British and floated a separate organization-the Muslim league in 1906 with a divisive concept of two-nation theory.

Noted socialist leaders like Ashok Mehta and Achyut Patvardhan observed, “Religion and politics are inseparably associated in the minds and thoughts of Muslims (“Communal Triangle in India, 1942, page123)

The movement to keep the Indian Muslims under siege dates back to the last decade of sixteenth century when the great Mogul Emperor Akbar’s religious ‘liberalism’ started decaying. Their concerted efforts to keep the through the ages from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564 – 1624) to Shah Waliullah (1704 -1762) and from Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan (1817-98) to Sir Allama Iqbal(1873/76-1938) the Indian Muslims devolved themselves to maintain a separate identity as a movement which is basically synonymous with a separate political identity.

In fact the separatist ideology of the Islamist thinkers influenced even the contemporary Muslim thinkers who were the repositories of their heritage and therefore ignored this perpetual conundrum of Indian Muslims. Contrary to it, M.J.Akbar, a reputed journalist and now a leader in BJP found “Indian Muslims evolving through ages” and linked their evolution through the poetry of Khushru, Ghalib, Iqbal and Akbar Allahabadi.

Rafiq Zakaria in his book “where the Muslims have gone wrong” complimented M.J.Akbar and said that he had “convincingly refuted Sir Vidia Naipaul for his propagation that Indian Muslims have developed no roots in India “. Every Indian would have gladly accepted this compliment of Zakaria had the Indian Muslims been sensitive to their socio-cultural past.

Contrary to the Islamic revival movement only through theological education, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, a Mogul scion and loyalist to British power launched a parallel Aligarh movement with the objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. He was the first scion of Mogul family in modern history of India, who launched a unique Muslim separatist movement with a political and educational ideology and an objective to restore the lost pride of his community after the fall of Mogul Empire. Deeply aggrieved with the plight of Muslim Indians particularly after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857and “acutely sensitive to the ending of Mogul dominance”, he is widely known as founder of Islamic modernism in India.

Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan while taking inspiration from Shah Waliullah’s concept of tactical moderation of Islam formulated the two-nation theory which not only formed the basis for the demand for a separate Muslim land of Pakistan but also coincided with the ‘hate-Hindu campaign’ of Shaikh Sarhind, Shah Wai-Ullah and Ahmad Barelavi. Through scientific and modern education to Muslims his movement produced a sizeable section of Muslim middle class with doctors, engineers, scientists and scholars of modern subjects. This new class of Muslims however, also came under the influence of the fundamentalist forces, worked as the fighting force for Muslim elite and gradually succeeded in getting embedded in the mindset of common Muslim masses.

Though, a staunch believer in Sunni order of Islam, his outlook took a decisive change after the Sepoy Mutiny in which he had personally witnessed the sufferings of his community members at the hands of the British. But as a part of his tactical move to bring back the Muslims into the confidence of the British, he continued his loyalty to the British throne till his death.

Strongly opposing the formation of Indian National Congress in 1885 on the plea that it was a Hindu dominated organisation Ahmad Khan prevented the Muslim elite from joining it. Restoring confidence among the despairing Muslims of his age he is largely regarded “as a forerunner of Pakistan”.

Instead of making any sincere effort towards the Hindu-Muslim unity Sir Sayed Ahmad rather convinced the British rulers that the two major religious communities of India were not capable of unity. (Hali’s Hayat-e-Javed, translated by K.H.Kadari and David Matthews, 1979, page 199, Idarh-e-adabiyat-e-Delhi Qasimjan Street, Delhi – Quoted from Pioneer dated 20.10 2004 in a letter to editor column by Roopa Kaushal).

A noted Muslim scholar M.R.A.Baig also observed:

“Being a descendant of high Mogul officials, he (Sir Syed Ahmad) emotionally could not accept that Muslims should be ruled by their former subjects. He also feared that Hindu rule will result in the imposition of Aryo-Dravidian culture on the Muslim Persio-Arabic civilisation”( The Muslim Dilemma in India by M.R.A. Baig – page 51-52).

Religious obsession of Muslims remained a potential factor during freedom struggle and formation of All India Muslim League (AIML) in 1906. Internationally known historian R. C. Majumdar in his book ‘Struggle for Freedom’ (Page 127, 1969) maintained: “Aligarh movement gradually alienated the Muslims from the Hindus in the political field…..The anti-Hindu feeling was conspicuously shown in the Muslims’ attitude towards Indian National Congress since its very inception”. He further said:

“It occurred to the Muslims that in order to counteract the political organisation of the Hindus, particularly the Congress, they must have a central organisation of their own” (Page 150, 1969). He added, “the spirit of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslims who with rare exceptions, regarded themselves as Muslim first and Indian afterwards” (Ibid. Page 152). He quoted Sir Percival Griffiths, ICS, who “stressed the Muslim belief that their interest must be regarded as completely separate from those of the Hindus, and that no fusion of the two communities was possible”(Ibid. Page153). “Middle class Muslim nationalism sabotaged the natural process of electoral democratisation”(Ameena A.Saeed in an interview in Times of India dated November 29, 2003).

Aligarh Muslim University, a citadel of Muslim Middle class played a major role in Pakistan movement under the guidance of Muslim elite. The then Muslim leadership used this new class to strengthen the siege of Islamic orthodoxy over the common Muslims with the ultimate objective to achieve its political hegemony.

The Muslim leaders who had mobilised the support of Muslim masses in favour of partition migrated to Pakistan with the result those who stayed back in India had very leaders left. . Since then, those few mediocre leaders still left continued with the objective of having a separate identity more to keep their hold on the masses than for any progress and welfare of the community.

The attitude of the political parties without exception to treat the community as their vote banks without any consideration for their welfare or their dignity became the strength of the minority and particularly those leaders who had the community under their control. Initially, these leaders became the agents of Indian National Congress but gradually sold the community votes to the highest bidders and thus turned the Indian Muslims into a vote bank commodity. So much so, instead of allowing them to independently avail the constitutional right to equality; the Muslim leaders kept them in isolation and didn’t allow them to see beyond the mosque and madrassa.

Ironically, even the contemporary Muslim ‘liberals’ did not make any attempt to identify the fault lines and prevent the Muslim clerics having “complete sway” on the masses and retaining the exclusivist identity of the community. These so called liberals behave like fence sitters and avoided any confrontation with the religious orthodoxy.

“As long as Muslims felt that they were an important and even decisive element of the ruling group they did not feel that they were a minority a term that implicitly condemns a community to the margins” (M .J. Akbar in his foreword of ‘Indian Muslims : Where have they gone wrong’ by Rafiq Zakaria, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).

There are a number of Muslim intellectuals who write about this bitter truth but it is an irony that they hardly speak this truth assertively when they face Muslim congregations. They often quote the address of Maulam Azad to the demoralised Indian Muslims in front of Jama Masjid after partition but they hardly assert to ensure that the Indian Muslims are freed from their medieval mindset and grip of the Muslim Clerics.

In post Independent India, Muslim intellectuals have been putting blame on Hindu nationalists for the Hindu-Muslim divide. But they never raise any voice against Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, who sowed the seed of two-nation theory and Allama Iqbal who propagated it. Both of them are highly revered among the Indian Muslims. Zakaria admits that “Indian Muslims became pawns in the hands of political parties” but he has ignored the historical facts that his community members always remained under the siege of the Muslim elite of this country.

The assertive institutionalisation of the communal distinctiveness of the Muslims by their leaders obstructed them to think independently about their overall development as a part of Indian society as a whole. They in fact created a myth about the fear of the cultural absorption of the Muslims by the majority.

Despite the fact that there is no Hindu vote bank as such, there is a view that the political mobilisation of Muslims as a vote bank made the secular politics questionable which ultimately worked as a catalyst to the electoral growth of the BJP. It looks now that the BJP leadership has also gradually realised the importance of the second largest religious majority and therefore, made a tactical shift from the sole ideology of Hindutva to the development of all with a new slogan of “Sabaka saath sabka vikas” which was also to woo the Muslim voters. Will this work? Difficult to say right now.

With the best of intentions, even Mahatma Gandhi failed to prevent the “separate identiy” perpetrated by the leaders of the community. If PM Modi succeeds where the icon of India failed, it would be a miracle but still it could be tried. With trust, the Indian Muslims may like to unload their mental medieval burden by launching an incredible movement under the patronage of the current political leadership of all hues.. With conviction, they should launch an assertive movement and an intellectual jehad to generate collective concern among the Muslim leaders to free the masses from the siege of the Ulema.

Vote Green – OpEd

0
0

The Democratic Party and their minions are leaving nothing to chance in their drive to get Hillary Clinton elected president of the United States. After spending the year claiming that Vladimir Putin is interfering in the elections or discrediting the ineffectual Bernie Sanders they are not giving up with only six weeks remaining in the campaign.

Voters know Hillary Clinton to be a liar, lawbreaker, warmonger and unreconstructed Goldwater girl. That well known history makes her unattractive to millions of people who vote for Democrats. The fear of a Donald Trump victory keeps them on her side but the support is shallow, with complaints and longing for a better choice.

Fortunately, many Democrats are no longer living in hope but are taking a serious look at the Green Party. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka are making headway with people who don’t want to fall for the smoke and mirrors again. Team Hillary should fear that votes for the Greens will jeopardize her chance to complete Bill Clinton’s wish of “two for the price of one.”

The anti-Green Party onslaught is in overdrive. Some of the attack consists of smears and lies against Stein and Baraka. One article in The Nation magazine is blunt: “Your Vote for Jill Stein is a Wasted Vote.” Others take a softer approach and raise the specter of a President Trump. The good cops at the same publication warn “Don’t Assume Someone Else Will Stop Trump.”

Bernie Sanders ought to be ashamed for leading millions of people on a path straight to Hillary Clinton but he refuses to disappear. This is no time for a protest vote says the sheep dog in chief.

But support for the Green Party should not be consigned to the triviality of protest voting. A vote for Stein and Baraka should be seen as a truly revolutionary act, not a faux Sandersesque revolution, but as part of the necessary effort to kill off the Democratic Party once and for all.

The Democratic Party uses left-leaning Americans to do the business of the ruling class. They may claim to be more inclusive, which isn’t difficult to do in comparison with the white peoples party. Democratic presidential candidates talk about protecting a woman’s right to choose abortion but do nothing to protect that right as it is stripped away across the country. They continue to be seen as the antiwar party even as they use regime change more successfully than George W. Bush ever dreamed. The party with unquestioned support among old line civil rights organizations has done more than Republicans to keep the mass incarceration of black people alive and well. They refuse to use the tools already at their disposal to punish killer police.

People who call themselves leftists or progressives have only one choice. They must work to replace the Democrats with a new and truly progressive party. The Green Agenda opposes American interventions abroad and Democratic Party trade deals which bestow corporate personhood and steal jobs. The Green Party pledges to abolish student debt, close U.S. military bases abroad, establish health care as a human right and provide constitutional protection for the franchise. All of the issues that matter to progressives are on the green party agenda.

Yet the plea to hold one’s nose and vote for the supposed lesser evil still resonates. The duopoly continues for a reason. They effectively use propaganda and fear to prevent defections. Both parties do the business of the 1%, further imperialism and continue enshrining anti-black racism with legal imprimatur. Yet they each use a variety of issues to give the appearance of substantive difference.

Barack Obama makes war, promotes austerity and bails out the banks. Yet we are told that his administration was progressive and must be continued in the person of Hillary Clinton. This year Donald Trump is the perfect republican foil. His open appeal to white nationalists broke with a tradition of winks and nudges and coded language. His open racism and boorish behavior makes him anathema to millions but the Hillaryites leave nothing to chance. They use their friends in corporate media to create fictitious connections with the Russian government and keep doubters in line.

But what would be so terrible about a Hillary Clinton defeat? Obama deported more immigrants than any other president so the xenophobic Trumpian appeals shouldn’t change what exists now. Trump says he will do what progressives say they want and end the practice of regime change and military intervention. Democrats always aid corporate interests and big banks so Trump can do no worse. The list of Democratic Party treachery is long and ought to galvanize the urge for change.

Not only must the left end the quadrennial surrender to people they say are their enemies but they must be unafraid to say that a Democratic loss is a necessity. The Democratic Party has long outlived its usefulness and there must be a plan in place to stop genuflecting to the more effective evil.

The response to the panicked plea for Hillary Clinton should be a declaration that the Democrats will soon be history. The choice must be an active one with an organizational effort to relieve the Greens of also-ran, spoiler status and put them on the road to being the party that millions of Americans so desperately need.
Every four years we are told the time isn’t right, or the Republican is too awful, or there will be a black president, or only if you don’t live in a swing state, or some other fairy tale used to frighten. Instead boldly vote Green in blue states and in red states and in swing states. If there is any fear it should be directed at the Hillary Clinton big tent of the 1% and imperialists. It should be directed at the people who ended the right to public assistance and filled the prisons with black people.

The question, “Do you want Hillary to lose?” is used to intimidate. The answer ought to be, “Yes I do. Because we must finally drive a stake in the democrats’ heart.”

Vote green.

Nigeria’s Cybercrime Law Being Used To Muzzle Media – OpEd

0
0

By Peter Nkanga*

Freedom of expression and the press is guaranteed under Section 39 of Nigeria’s Constitution. But restrictive laws which allow for journalists and bloggers to be arrested for reporting critically on politicians and others, violates that right.

Since Nigeria’s cybercrime act was voted into law in May 2015 authorities have used the accusation of cyber stalking to harass and press charges against at least five bloggers who criticized politicians and businessmen online and through social media.

Cyber stalking, which falls under Section 24 of the act, carries a fine of up to 7 million naira (US$22,000) and a maximum three-year jail term for anyone convicted of knowingly sending an online message that “he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will or needless anxiety to another.”

Last month, the law was cited in the August 20 arrest of Musa Babale Azare who was detained in the capital, Abuja, by police from Bauchi state. He was accused of allegedly criticising the state governor, Muhammad Abdullah Abubakar, on social media, according to news reports. Azare, who uses Facebook and Twitter as platforms to criticize the actions and policies of Abubakar and his administration, said he was denied access to his lawyer, and that police did not have authority to arrest him outside Bauchi state jurisdiction.

Azare said he was taken 450km from Abuja to a police station in Bauchi state to have his statement taken. The next day he was granted bail on his own recognizance. The Bauchi government has denied links to his arrest, news reports said. Azare said police showed him a petition written by a law firm on behalf of six people, including the chief of staff to the state governor and the state chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress party, who accused him of cyber stalking and criminal defamation against the governor.

Mahmud Mohammed, the Bauchi state police spokesman, told CPJ he was not aware of Azare’s arrest, but promised to look into the case.

In a separate case, armed operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission arrested Abubakar Sidiq Usman on August 8 for allegedly posting “offensive publications” against the commission and its staff, Usman wrote in his blog, Abusidiqu. The commission said in a statement that Usman was arrested for “offences bordering on cyber stalking.”

“They didn’t even explain to me the details of the ‘cyber stalking’ allegation and what the specific crimes were and ’till this day, nobody has said anything to me in clear terms what my offence is,” Usman, who said he was detained for 36 hours, wrote in his blog. “It was only at the moment they showed me the search warrant that I was able to deduce that my arrest was in regards to some publications that I had made on my blog, Abusidiqu, particularly about the head of the anti-graft commission.”

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s action was widely condemned in news reports as a threat to free speech. Usman said he believes the commission’s chairman used the anti-graft agency to persecute him over several posts on his blog that alleged corruption and repeated complaints from staff against the past and present chairmen.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission did not immediately return CPJ’s calls and emails seeking comment about Usman’s claims. The journalist’s laptop, phones, and other personal belongings that were confiscated have not yet been returned.

CPJ found that at least three other bloggers were prosecuted under the cybercrime act in the space of four months last year after they reported or commented on critical reports.

On August 25, 2015, Seun Oloketuyi, the publisher of Naijahottestgist, was arraigned before a federal high court in Lagos on charges of cyber stalking and defamation over a story alleging that the chief executive of a bank was having an affair, according to news reports. Oloketuyi was remanded in prison and granted bail of 3 million naira on condition he has two sureties, according to news reports.

On September 1, 2015 Chris Kehinde Nwandu, publisher of Cknnigeria and president of the Guild of Professional Bloggers of Nigeria, was arrested for allegedly sharing the Naijahottestgist story on Facebook. Nwandu was arraigned two days later on cyber stalking and defamation charges, and was denied bail three times, according to reports.

Nwandu told CPJ he had only commented on the charges brought against Oloketuyi. He said he was remanded in prison for 13 days before being granted bail. The case against him and Oloketuyi was dropped on June 29, 2016, according to Nwandu and news reports.

In October 2015, Desmond Ike Chima, a blogger who posts on Myemag and E-Nigeria, was charged with cyber stalking at a lower magistrate court, over an article alleging that the managing director of a different bank was having an affair, according to news reports. The lower court granted him bail, but Chima was arraigned before a federal high court the following month, according to news reports and local bloggers. Chima spent six months in prison, four of which were spent in a maximum security prison, because he was unable to meet the stringent bail conditions, according to reports. Nwandu said bail was set at 3 million naira on the condition he has two sureties. Nwandu said that after intervention from the bloggers’ guild and other groups, charges against Chima were dropped and he was released in April.

In a separate case, a blogger called Emmanual Ojo said he had to go into hiding after being threatened and facing charges over a social media post.

Ojo was charged with criminal libel and conspiracy under the criminal code in September 2015, after a complaint from the Ogun state government over a story alleging the wife of the state governor was involved in money laundering–a claim she denies–according to news reports. The prosecution dropped the case at the magistrate court and filed a new case against Ojo at a federal high court, which has authority to issue more severe punishments and set higher bail, according to reports.

Ojo issued a public apology and withdrew a lawsuit he had filed against the police and the governor’s chief security officer over his arrest. The journalist fled Nigeria after “threats from powerful people became unbearable,” he was quoted as saying in reports.

Freedom of expression and the press is guaranteed under Section 39 of Nigeria’s constitution. But restrictive laws which allow for journalists and bloggers to be arrested for reporting critically on politicians and others, violates that right. “The Cybercrime Act has to be repealed because it is evil, dictatorial and completely violates everything that is free speech,” Azare said.

In May, the rights groups Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, Enough is Enough Nigeria, and Media Rights Agenda challenged the constitutionality of sections of the cybercrime law in a lawsuit, saying it threatens human rights online, according to news reports. The group sent a draft Digital Rights and Freedom Bill to parliament with an urgent call for a review of the law, the reports said.

Tomiwa Ilori, a lawyer and researcher at Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, said that his analysis of the cybercrime law shows it constitutes a grave danger to how private data and electronic communications are intercepted, recorded, retained, protected, and used. This is subject to abuse by law enforcement agencies and service providers, he said.

“The law gives them extensive powers to hold personal data without corresponding liability. And there is no provision in the law to seek redress,” Ilori said. “A person’s personal data can’t just be handed over to security operatives when there is no proper procedure of protecting that person’s right. This is a serious concern because [in Nigeria] justice is seldom served.”

* Peter Nkanga, an independent bilingual investigative journalist based in Abuja, Nigeria, is Committee to Protect Journalists’ West Africa representative. Peter specializes in human rights and advocacy reporting. This article first appeared in the CJP’s blog.

Did I Say That? State Department Official Admits Ties To Terrorist Groups – OpEd

0
0

“No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’”, Unnamed Green Beret, (“US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria”, Jack Murphy, SOFREP News)

The United States is on the wrong side in the Syrian war. The U.S. is on the side of al Qaida, the terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Jabhat al Nusra, which is the name of al Qaida’s branch in Syria, is the most powerful and effective militia currently fighting against the Syrian government. Al Nusra is not comprised of “moderates” that are fighting for democracy, civil liberties or human rights. They are Islamic extremists that want to remove the secular government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad and replace it with an Islamic caliphate that will ruthlessly enforce Sharia law. The bulk of al Nusra’s foot-soldiers are not Syrian nationals, but foreign-born militants recruited by the various Intelligence agencies (US, Turkish, Saudi and Qatar) from around the world. A large portion of these fighters have been armed, trained and funded by these same intel agencies. Whether al Nusra gets its marching orders directly from Langley, Riyadh or Ankara, is a matter of considerable debate, (I, personally, don’t think they do) but it is also completely irrelevant. What’s more important is that these terrorist organizations are mainly the invention of the western intel agencies that use jihadists to advance their own geopolitical agendas in places like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya, Libya, Somalia etc. Absent state support, these gangs of cutthroats would likely wither and vanish in a matter of months. Instead, they have grown into a small but lethal global army capable of ousting sovereign regimes and destabilizing entire regions.

The record shows that the CIA’s relationship to these shadowy groups goes back more than 30 years to Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan where the Mujahideen were used to rout the Russians in Washington’s stealth war against the Soviet Union. Elements of the Mujahideen evolved into al Qaida which launched the attacks on 9-11. One might think that a catastrophic event like the downing on the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan, would prompt a thorough review of the policy (of supporting Islamic extremists), but that hasn’t been the case at all. The CIA continues to back all manner of dodgy groups (Death squads in Nicaragua and Iraq, neo-Nazis in Ukraine, jihadists in numerous locations) provided they help to advance the imperial agenda. National security and the safety of the American people simply never factor into elite decisionmaking. What drives the policy is oil, power, money and Israel. Nothing else matters.

In the case of Syria, al Nusra and the other so-called “moderate” terrorists serve a crucial purpose. They allow foreign actors to prosecute a clandestine “regime change” war while invoking plausible deniability, thus, eschewing any criminal accountability for their actions. These deep-state puppeteers– who are ultimately responsible for the massive death and destruction in Syria– believe they can achieve the same horrific results that were achieved in Iraq without committing US ground troops, without igniting a violent and prolonged insurgency, and without triggering the public relations disaster they experienced in 2003. In other words, Washington is using proxy warriors to achieve the same results as in Iraq without incurring the same costs.

The use of proxies has been used to confuse the public about what is really going on in Syria, but the facts are plain to see. Syria is not in the throes of a “civil war” as the media would have us believe. The country is being ripped apart by an American invasion, the same as Iraq was destroyed by an American invasion. The substitution of armed-proxies for US footsoldiers doesn’t change a thing. The fact is, the US is the main driver of the current policy. The jihadist invasion would not have taken place without a green light and material support from Washington.

The goal of the invasion is to replace Bashar al Assad with a US-stooge, splinter the country into multiple parts, and control vital pipeline corridors. Washington wants to create conditions on the ground that forever prevent the reemergence of a strong, secular central government that can openly oppose US commercial interests, US regional hegemony or pose a threat to Israel. That’s the whole ball o’ wax. Syria must be destroyed to strengthen Washington’s grip on the Middle East and assert control over its resources. To that end, the US eagerly throws its support behind the vast pool of Sunni militants that have formed into small armies which appear to enjoy a great deal of autonomy, but, in fact, follow a narrow script that closely coincides with the aims of their patrons. When these militias eventually outlive their usefulness, (as I expect they will) they will either be disbanded or extinguished by the same people who first breathed life into them.

Just to be clear, we are not saying that Washington or the CIA directly control al Nusra. (The precise manner in which Nusra acquires US-made weaponry remains unclear.) What we are saying, however, is that the CIA and their allies are responsible for this global scourge and use its agents on the ground to pursue their own interests. In effect, Al Nusra is performing the same function that US foot soldiers performed in Iraq. They are the tip of the spear, the faceless grunts who execute the imperial policy, regime change. The fact that no American soldiers are killed, precludes the bodybags, the flag-draped coffins, the wailing mothers at military funerals, and the blood-soaked headlines, all of which fuels popular resistance to misguided military campaigns. The use of proxy militias is designed to avoid all of those potential pitfalls. Even so, the strategy does have its shortcomings, like the effect it has on morale when Special Ops troops are used to train jihadists how to fight in Syria. Check out this excerpt from an article at SOFREP News titled “US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria”:

“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’”

“I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” the Green Beret added. A second Special Forces soldier commented that one Syrian militia they had trained recently crossed the border from Jordan on what had been pitched as a large-scale shaping operation that would change the course of the war. Watching the battle on a monitor while a drone flew overhead, “We literally watched them, with 30 guys in their force, run away from three or four ISIS guys.” (sofrep.com) (“US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria”, Jack Murphy, SOFREP News)

The Green Berets see through this nonsense. They know that these training programs are a farce, but the game goes on regardless. They probably also know that the CIA has been running similar programs for the better part of the last 30 years and, yet, nothing changes. The agency continues its engagement with homicidal maniacs unleashing them on the world with ever increasing frequency. At the same time, Koolaid-drinking Americans continue to ignore what is going on right beneath their noses preferring instead to spend long hours in a coma-like trance watching home improvement shows or catching up with the Kardashians. Whatever it is, they remain uniquely oblivious to the crimes committed by their government which, as Harold Pinter noted in his Nobel acceptance speech “have been systematic, constant, vicious and remorseless.”

Last week, the spokesman for the US State Department, John Kirby, delivered a uncharacteristically threatening message to Moscow which suggested that the US maintains connections with terrorist organizations. Here’s what he said:

“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft.” Kirby added that if the war in Syria continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”

Naturally, Moscow was taken aback by Kirby’s frankness, particularly his tacit admission that Washington somehow controls the activities of the terrorists they claim to be fighting. That was the real stunner, and it didn’t pass unnoticed, in fact, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov delivered a broadsides just hours after Kirby’s press confab. He said:

“We cannot interpret this as anything else but de facto support for terrorism. These poorly veiled invitations to use terrorism as a weapon against Russia shows the political depths the current US administration has stooped to in its approach to the Middle East and Syria.”

Ryabkov’s statement was followed by Russian FM Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova who took a more reflective view saying:

“And those [acts of terrorism] will be perpetrated by ‘moderate’ [Syrian opposition groups]?…Just the ones that Washington has been unable to separate from Al-Nusra for as long as six months?”

“[What about] Terrorist attacks in France, America and other countries; the beheadings of people of all nationalities by Islamic State militants in Syria – is this all kind of a different paradigm? Perhaps another ‘parallel reality?”

In other words, Zakharova wants Kirby to clarify the extent to which Washington controls these terrorist groups. Is the State Department’s power limited to Syria or can they claim responsibility for other seemingly random acts of violence? It would be nice to know, wouldn’t it?

Zakharova also added this bombshell that suggests the cat is out of the bag:

“Don’t you think that such ventriloquism about ‘body bags,’ ‘terrorist attacks in Russian cities’ and ‘loss of aircraft,’ sounds more like a ‘get ’em’ command, rather than a diplomatic comment?”

It’s a fair question, don’t you think? Is Washington acting as a “ventriloquist”, that is, a performer that controls the movements and voice of a dummy? Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Igor Konashenkov, seems to think so. Check out this clip from AMN News:

“According to Konashenkov, US Department of State spokesman John Kirby’s statement is tantamount to recognition the Syrian opposition is in fact a US-controlled international terrorist alliance.

“Kirby, I am certain, is well aware of the after-effects of his statement. His words are the most frank confession by the US side so far the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a civil war in Syria is a US-controlled international terrorist alliance,” Konashenkov said.

“What makes Kirby’s statement particularly shocking is that the scale of direct US influence on terrorists’ activity is global. That it reaches as far as Russia. The mask comes off, doesn’t it, sirs?”
(“Russia warns US over recent threats”, AMN)

(This same analysis was published in western media, too, like the UK Telegraph.)

A “US-controlled international terrorist alliance”?? Is that what we’re talking about?

Kirby’s comments appear to indicate that that is precisely the case. But why would Kirby make such a careless and self-incriminating statement that many believe to be a smoking gun? And, why hasn’t he provided a follow-up explanation, clarification, correction or retraction ? Why?

Hubris, that’s why. The US foreign policy establishment is so secure in its unassailable political position, they simply don’t care what the little people think anymore. It just doesn’t matter to them. What the power elite care about is making sure that Putin “gets the message”, that he knows he’ll pay a hefty price if he doesn’t shape up and fall in line. That’s what they really care about and that’s why Kirby hasn’t backed off his damning statement.

But what about the rest of us? How should we regard the war on terror in light of Kirby’s surprising admission?

We need to realize that our approach to terrorism is all wrong. Terrorism cannot be defeated by nipping at the edges or by killing individual agents or groups. That hasn’t worked and that won’t work. The cancer has to be eradicated at its source which — in all probability– means either dismantling or reigning in the CIA and bringing its deep-state paymasters to justice. That is how one wins the war on terror.


UK’s May Reaffirms Desire For Controlled Immigration, Accused Of Nationalism

0
0

By Samuel Morgan

(EurActiv) — British Prime Minister Theresa May said today (5 October) she wants a Brexit deal which offers “maximum freedom” to operate in Europe’s single market but again reiterated the need for immigration control. Her final speech also caused a backlash, with May being accused of indulging in nationalism.

May’s demands are contradictory for European leaders, who have emphasised that access to the single market is dependent on allowing free movement of workers.

“I want to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the single market and let European businesses do the same thing here,” May told the Conservative party conference.

But she added: “We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again and we’re not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.

May told delegates in Birmingham on Sunday (2 October) that she would trigger negotiations with Brussels to leave the EU before the end of March, opening the door for a possible withdrawal in early 2019.

The announcement sent the pound plunging against the euro and dollar but stocks have soared since a weaker pound has helped boost British exporters.

“It’s going to be a tough negotiation. It will require some give and take,” May added.

While she has given little away about her negotiating strategy, her government is seen by analysts as moving towards a “hard” Brexit, which could involve limited, if any, access to Europe’s single market in return for more control over immigration.

May and her government has been on the end of fierce criticism over the last 24 hours and is facing a backlash over plans to “name and shame” British companies that employ foreign workers over British candidates.

The prime minister was also criticised today of peddling “pure nationalism” after her closing speech at the party conference, where she said that “if you believe that you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere”.

Catalan Ports Could Be More Vulnerable To Rising Sea Levels

0
0

Storms generate heavy swell, putting ports at risk; this problem is compounded by rising sea level caused by climate change. A team of scientists analysed the impact of this phenomenon in Catalonia, concluding that the number of ports affected will double by the year 2100.

The overtopping of port breakwaters, caused by high swell during storms, is one of the problems most frequently faced by ports. Added to this is the problem of rising sea level, one consequence of climate change, which increases the depth of the water surrounding breakwaters, reducing their height.

A team of scientists from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC) analysed the impact of rising sea levels at 43 of Catalonia’s 47 ports in three different future scenarios, taking into account different types of swell produced by several types of storm: frequent storms (once per year on average), large storms (once every five years) and exceptional storms (once every 50 years).

“The first scenario assumes a 47 cm rise in rise sea level in 2100 compared to the current situation; the second value for the same year is 88 cm (considered the worst-case scenario by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); finally, we considered an extreme scenario with a 180 cm rise in sea level. Although there is a low probability that this will come about (below 5 %), it cannot be ruled out, especially if there is an acceleration in the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice,” Sinc was told by Joan Pau Sierra, Maritime Engineering Laboratory researcher at UPC.

The findings, published in the journal Regional Environmental Change, show that as the sea level rises, overtopping flows at port breakwaters and the number of ports with “higher than acceptable overtopping levels” also increase, Sierra pointed out.

Increasingly vulnerable

In the worst scenario, twice as many ports or more would be affected. “Three to 8 would be affected by frequent storms, 5 to 11 by large storms and 10 to 20 by exceptionally large storms,” says the researcher. In this extreme scenario, 28 (or 65 %) of the ports studied would see overtopping flows increase by more than one order of magnitude compared to current values.

For exceptional storms, a sea level rise of 180 cm would bring the number of ports with levels of overtopping discharge that can cause damage to the breakwater to seven; only two ports record this level of discharge with the current sea level.

For smaller rises in sea level, overtopping and port vulnerability would still increase, but at a lesser scale. The scientist warns that it will be necessary to take measures to compensate for this.

Belgium: Prosecutors Link Police Stabbing To Terrorism

0
0

Belgian prosecutors say two police officers have been stabbed by a knife-wielding man in Brussels in an incident that could be terror-related, the Associated Press reports.

The man stabbed one officer in the neck and the other in the abdomen in the city’s Schaerbeek neighborhood on Wednesday, October 5 and then fled the scene.

The assailant was stopped by a second group of police. He broke the nose of one officer, who shot the man in the leg.

Federal prosecutor’s spokesman Eric Van Der Sypt said “we have reason to believe that it is terror-related.”

He declined to provide details or explain why prosecutors think the attack was linked to terrorism.

Belgium has been on high alert since 32 people were killed in suicide bombing attacks on the Brussels airport and subway on March 22.

Aleppo and America’s Syria Policy – Analysis

0
0

By Robert G. Rabil for Syria Comment*

With Aleppo under indiscriminate heavy bombardment and siege by the Syrian regime and its allies, Russia, Iran, Iraqi Mobilization Units and Hezbollah, the pitch of the chorus of voices blaming and shaming the U.S. for not intervening militarily in Syria to stop the bloodshed has reached a crescendo not seen since the days preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Whereas some critical views offered heartfelt appeals to salvage Syria as a state and a nation, others bluntly blamed the failed policies of the Obama Administration for the tragedy befalling Syria.

This debate over the Obama’s administration policy on Syria was put recently on display by Secretary of State John Kerry. In a meeting with a small number of Syrian civilians, Secretary Kerry confessed that he had lost an argument within the Obama administration to back up diplomatic efforts with the threat of using military force against the Syrian regime. He also added that Congress would never agree to the use of force. According to the New York Times, several comments made in the meeting “crystallized the widespread sense of betrayal even among the Syrians most attractive to Washington as potential partners, civilians pushing for pluralistic democracy.”

No doubt, this notion of American betrayal and culpability cast a pall over the reliability and essence of Washington’s role in the Middle East in general and in Syria in particular. On closer examination, however, it becomes clear that the American role in Syria, though not beyond criticism, has been more emotively criticized than cerebrally expounded, especially as it relates to American national interest. Herein lay the confusion over and frustration with American foreign policy. In fact, the American role in Syria cannot be fully understood without being contextualized in a framework of reference according to which American national interest is evaluated on the basis of the modern history of U.S.-Syrian relationship, the crisis of the Arab world and American war on terrorism, and the new dawning of a global reality.

The history of the U.S.-Syrian relationship is conflicted and had been grounded in ambivalence, making a potential U.S. military involvement in Syria hardly possible. As I have shown in Syria, United States and the War on Terror in the Middle East, U.S.-Syrian relations have been marked by antagonism and ambivalence, not limited to the Asads’ reign. In fact, U.S. overtures to Syria were not only shunned but opposed. The U.S., unlike Britain and France, entertained no colonial ambitions in the Middle East. The U.S. relationship with Israel and Syria started on an equal footing after World War Two. The U.S. recognized the independence of Syria before supporting the creation of the state of Israel. The support for Israel was not meant to serve either as a bridgehead to American influence or as an outpost of imperialism. Nor was it a ploy to dictate Syrian policies. The Cold War and Arab nationalist policies, which equated Israel with colonialism, opened the gates of the heartland of the Middle East to the rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The main objective of the U.S. was to check Soviet expansion in the region, which fed on Arab grievances against the Western powers and their support of Israel.

When in November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly voted for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab, with Jerusalem as a separate enclave to be administered by a governor appointed by the international organization, Syrian demonstrators attacked the U.S. legation in Damascus.  When in October 1950, the U.S., Britain, France, and Turkey formally proposed to Egypt the formation of a Middle East Defense Organization (MEDO), the purpose of which would serve to extend the containment of the Soviet Union to the heartland of the Middle East, Syrians denounced MEDO as an imperialist plot. Egypt’s refusal to enter MEDO and Syria’s opposition to it doomed it to failure. At the time, the U.S. had no special relations with either Syria or Israel. Its concern with containing the Soviet Union made it look at Israel and Syria through the prism of Cold War politics. When Western powers supported the Baghdad pact of 1955 as a means to counter the threat of communism, “progressive forces” in Syria, the Ba’th, the Democratic Bloc, and the Communists opposed the pact and consequently moved Syria in the direction of Egypt and the Soviet Union. This set the stage for the Middle East to become a ground of rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

No sooner, in July 1956, after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, the British, French, and Israelis led a joint attack on Egypt in late October, which was frowned upon by the U.S. This emanated from a cluster of complex considerations. Prominent among them was, on the one hand, the attempt to woo away Egyptian nationalists from the Soviet embrace and, on the other hand, the concern over taking action that could deepen the Soviet embrace. In his memoirs, Eisenhower emphasized the implications of the attack for Arab nationalism:

I must say that it is hard for me to see any good final result emerging from a scheme that seems to antagonize the entire Moslem world. Indeed I have difficulty seeing any end whatsoever if all the Arabs should begin reacting somewhat as the North Africans have been operating against the French.[i]

The U.S. compelled Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip, both captured during the Suez war. Syria, for its part, immediately supported Egypt when the three powers invaded it. At the height of the crisis, Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli flew to Moscow to seek political and military support. Clearly, despite the high ground the U.S. had achieved in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Suez crisis, the Syrians saw in the Soviet Union a protector that readily poured much needed economic and military assistance in perilous times. Similarly, U.S. expectations of appreciation from the Arabs for intervention in the Suez crisis in their favor turned hollow.

Consequently, the U.S. feared a total Soviet victory in the region. In January 1957, Dulles addressed Congress stressing that “it would be a major disaster for the nations and peoples of the Middle East, and indeed for all the world, including the U.S., if that area were to fall into the grip of international communism.” He added that the U.S. “must do whatever it properly can to assist the nations of the Middle East to maintain their independence.”[ii] The Eisenhower administration had its way when Congress passed the joint resolution in March 1957, henceforth known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, conceding to the administration request that

The president is authorized to…employ the armed forces of the United States as he deems necessary to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of any such nation or group of nations requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism.[iii]

The U.S. president sent Ambassador James P. Richards to the Middle East to inaugurate the new doctrine. Only Lebanon and Iraq endorsed the Doctrine. Syria refused to receive the Ambassador. Initially, Syria had rejected the Eisenhower doctrine on the grounds that intervention in the affairs of a nation over economic interests was a flagrant violation of the sovereignty principle; and that the American assertion that a power vacuum existed in the region was but a pretext for imperialist intervention and hegemony.[iv] By August 1957, the relationship between the U.S. and Syria sank to a new low when the Syrian government charged the U.S. with an attempt to overthrow it. The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a communiqué on August 19 announcing the discovery of the American plot. The communiqué emphasized that the goal of the Eisenhower doctrine was to seize the independence of Middle Eastern countries and offer them as easy prey to Zionism and imperialism. The U.S. rebuffed Syrian accusations, interpreting them as a “smokescreen behind which people that have the leftish leanings are trying to build up their power.”[v] Subsequently, the U.S. and Syrian ambassadors were declared personae non gratae in their respective host countries.

In 1963, the Ba’th party came to power through a coup d’etat. In order to support its militant attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict and its socialist domestic policy, the Ba’th government cooperated closely with the Soviet Union to obtain financial and military aid. By contrast, Syria’s relations with the U.S. continued to deteriorate. The U.S., however, held both Syria and Israel responsible for the growing violence along their borders[vi]. It called later on upon Syria to insure that its territory would not be used as a base for terrorism against Israel.[vii] Heightened tension along the Israeli-Syrian border contributed to the eruption of the June 1967 War, following which Damascus broke off diplomatic relations with Washington.

US-Syrian relations remained abysmal until Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, following the 1973 war, brokered the 1974 Israel-Syria Disengagement Agreement over the Golan Heights. Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy was arduous but important because it conveyed to Arab leaders and particularly to Syrian president Hafiz Asad that without American support there is no return to the status quo ante. This complemented the overall strategy of the Nixon Administration in the Middle East, which set out to demonstrate that the Soviet Union’s capacity to foment crises was not matched by its ability to resolve them.[viii] The underlying implications of the American strategy were to prod the Arab leaders to approach Washington for assistance in the peace process and to make manifest the Arab’s anachronistic concept of all-or-nothing approach towards Israel.

This uneasy rapprochement between the U.S. and Syria was carried on by the Ford and the Carter administrations, especially that the latter had made the reflection of American values in foreign policy one of its central themes. The realpolitik and elliptical approach to foreign policy, which had characterized the State Department under Kissinger, was to be replaced by an open foreign policy, substituting “world order” for “balance of power,” and placing Human Rights issues high on the Administration’s agenda. Not surprisingly, Carter’s quest for idealism in foreign policy clashed with his geopolitical realism, resulting in an ambivalence, which was reinforced by the divergent world views of his principal advisers.

Significantly, this brief evolution of U.S.-Syrian relations was seriously hobbled when Syria appeared on the US State Department’s “terrorism list” in 1979. Still, Washington maintained a belief in Syria’s key regional role and in its capacity to influence events in the region. This led to the emergence of Washington’s ambivalent attitude toward Damascus, which became first apparent in Lebanon and then a hallmark of US-Syrian relations until the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ironically, the terrorism issue, which precluded the US from improving its relationship with Syria, became the issue responsible for bringing the two countries together.

At the same time, U.S.-Syrian relations, mainly in the 1980s, were affected by the Cold War and the complexities and harsh realities of the Middle East in general and Israel and Syria’s struggle for Lebanon in particular. Significantly, the Reagan administration launched a peace initiative following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. However, the American involvement in Lebanon suffered a painful blow when 240 U.S. marines died in a terrorist attack on their headquarters in West Beirut in October 1983. Though fingers were directed to Iran as the sponsor of the terrorist who carried out the suicidal attack, Syrian involvement could not be ruled out.

The U.S., backing its diplomacy with the threat of force, fired battleship guns (the carrier, New Jersey) on Syrian dominated Lebanese positions. Syria fired back and shot down two American war planes, which had engaged in an exchange of fire. This marked the first direct confrontation between Washington and Damascus. However, amid sharp division and opposition to the U.S. role in Lebanon within the Reagan administration, President Reagan chose not to escalate the skirmishes to a full war. Both complexities and treacherous realities of the Lebanese civil war and the Arab-Israeli conflict flew in the face of America’s policy in the region. The U.S. redeployed its troops to U.S. ships offshore and put the peace initiative on the back burner.

US relations with Syria remained ambivalent straddling the ground of sanctions and cooperation. Interestingly, Syria was the only country listed on the US State Department’s terrorism list with which Washington maintained diplomatic relations. The height of cooperation ensued when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and Syria participated in the US-led international coalition to extract Iraq from Kuwait. Consequently, US-Syrian relations warmed and Damascus became central to the Arab-Israeli peace process launched after the end of the Gulf War. Asad was hailed in the Arab world as Salahuddin, who wrested Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and the steadfast Arab nationalist leader. During the peace process, Asad helped build the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon at the expense of the legitimacy of the state. Arab leaders and many intellectuals applauded him.

Upon his assumption of power after the death of his father in 2000, Bashar Asad promised an era of political openness. Syrian intellectuals and quasi-civil society groups responded by what became known as the Damascus Spring. However, their call for pluralism and political and civil rights were soon muzzled. Clearly, the Syrian regime feared on his hold to power and decided to censor all socio-political activities. Syrian activism reemerged following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Notably, the activists’ call for reform was couched in the interest of safeguarding Syria from the spillover of the profound changes sweeping Iraq and by extension the region. No calls for removing Asad or his regime were declared. No less significant, reformers of all ideological stripes and backgrounds failed to unite. In hindsight, no time period during the modern history of Syria was more opportune to pressure the regime into making significant changes than in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Washington’s relations with Damascus swiftly deteriorated once Asad opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and then sank to a dangerous low when the Syrian regime helped Jihadists cross Syria into Iraq to fight U.S. troops. Yet, Arab condemnation of U.S. invasion of Iraq to remove a Ba’thi dictator stood in sharp contrast to the deafening silence of Arab condemnation of Syrian complicity in murdering U.S. troops. This attitude prevailed in Syria until the eruption of the rebellion against the Asad regime.

Simply put, Syria, throughout most of its modern history, did not support the U.S. Even during the peace process no relational structures were considered by either country to support a warm and/or mutually beneficial strategic cooperation or alliance between the two countries. Taking all this under consideration, one cannot fail but observe that American attitudinal role in Syria has been more or less affected by the history of this conflicted and ambivalent U.S.-Syrian relationship.

Second, for a nation fighting a war on terrorism whose ideology and praxis are mostly traced to the Middle East, it is arguably hardly possible for United States to entertain a role in Syria not associated with counterterrorism. Admittedly, the Obama administration has done serious mistakes, chief among them calling on President Asad to step down and creating a red line against the regime’s use of chemical weapons. Eventually, the U.S. did not back its words with action. At the same time, the U.S. relegated the political initiative to deal with the Syrian crisis to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Whereas the first fanned the ideological and monetary support for the jihadists, the other paved for the Jihadists the route to Damascus. Yet, the U.S. has struggled to support moderate opposition groups. As it turned out, some of these groups have shifted their allegiance to al-Nusra Front or other Salafi-Jihadist groups, which are dedicated to killing Americans. In addition, can the moderate opposition be absolved of the tragedy befalling Syria? When the U.S. designated al-Nusra Front as a terrorist organization in November 2012, members of the Syrian opposition deplored the American act, asserting the indispensability of the al-Qaeda-affiliate group in fighting the Asad regime. This was a serious strategic mistake that helped further legitimize Salafi-jihadism within the Syrian revolution. Therefore, how could anyone blame the U.S. for the rise of Salafi-jihadism in Syria? Did the U.S. support, equip, train, or fund Salafi-jihadists? Did the U.S. prefer supporting Jihadists more than the moderate opposition? In fact, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait and UAE all supported various Islamists and Jihadists significantly more than the moderate opposition. No less significant, it is the Arab world, which applauded and hailed the violent and oppressive Asad regime, that supported the jihadists and helped bring Syria to its tragedy. Certainly, ISIS is the latest manifestation of an Arab world mired in deep social and political crisis.

Meanwhile, once the regime’s hold onto power had begun to teeter, despite considerable support from Iran and Hezbollah, Russia stepped in not only to save its old satellite capital but also to entrench itself in the Mediterranean basin as a bulwark against what it considers American hegemony. Strategically speaking, by helping the Syrian regime, Moscow would create in Western Syria a bastion of Iranian influence beholden to Russian power, while at the same time turning the Eastern Mediterranean into a Russian lake. No doubt, the entry of Moscow into the Syrian fay further complicated Washington’s maneuvers. Whereas Moscow came to the help of an old client, Washington has had reservations with certain predominant Salafi-jihadist group spearheading the opposition. And, if history is any guide, it is naïve to think that Russia would not pursue a Grozny-like campaign to ensure that its military involvement in Syria would not become ominously perpetual. This explains the forcible displacement of Sunnis from parts of Western Syria and the savagery with which Russia and its allies have pursued their campaign to seize full control of Aleppo.

Consequently, Washington found itself in a quandary. It ironically found itself on the same side with Russia and the Syrian regime fighting Salafi-Jihadist opposition groups while at the same time supporting the moderate opposition whose power paled in comparison to the Jihadists.  Expectedly, neither the Obama Administration, Congress, nor the US public support sending troops to an unfriendly land crisscrossed by jihadists on one side, and Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah and Iraqi Mobilization units on the other. How could one expect the U.S. to attack the regime, even in a limited capacity, without potentially incurring the wrath and retaliation of its Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Iraqi allies, all of which are really running the deadly show? Similarly, should anyone expect that Salafi-jihadists will not jump at the opportunity of Washington striking at the regime to widen their sphere of influence and in the process slaughter non-believers? Or should anyone brush aside the possibility that the Iraqi mobilization units would use their partnership with the Iraqi government to attack the approximately 6000 American soldiers advising the same government? Or should American people forget the high pitched fictitious slogan that Iraqis would welcome Americans with flowers as liberators in 2003? Certainly, the U.S. is in an unenviable position in both Syria and Iraq, where American enemies vastly outnumber American friends! Nevertheless, The U.S. has been the largest donor of humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees, and has sent dozens of U.S. troops to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition forces.

Speaking recently before the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon drew a bleak but accurate picture of the Syrian crisis: “Present in this hall today are representatives of governments that have ignored, facilitated, funded, participated in or even planned and carried out atrocities inflicted by all sides of the Syria conflict against Syrian civilians…Many groups have killed innocent civilians — none more so than the government of Syria, which continues to barrel bomb neighborhoods and systematically torture thousands of detainees.”

This is the tragedy of Syria and, by extension, the tragedy of the Muslim world in the Middle East. Be that as it may, the U.S. should apply its soft influence to reach a permanent cease fire and end the slaughter and displacement of Syrians. No doubt dealing with Russia is exhausting and at times unproductive. But the reality of the world today is that the U.S. cannot force a cease fire as part of a settlement on its own without introducing a massive number of troops to eventually occupy Syria.  In his most recent book World Order, Henry Kissinger affirms that the main challenge for the twenty-first century is how to shape an international order in a world buffeted by violent conflicts, technological proliferation and radicalism. He adds that unless the major powers reach a new kind of accommodation about their global roles chaos would ensue. In other words, the United States would find it difficult to play the leadership role it had carried out in post-Cold War. Consequently, the United States confronts a paradox whereby it continues to be the undisputed global leader but in an often contested, sometimes uncertain global position. This is the international backdrop against which the tragedy in Syria continues to unfold.

More specifically, however, Syria as a nation is paying the deep price for the social, political and sectarian flaws in Arab society. Following the Arab defeat in 1967, the Syrian and Arab philosopher par excellence Sadek al-Azm wrote a book entitled Al-Naqd al-Thati Ba’da al-Hazima (Self-Criticism After the Defeat), in which he argued that the defeat of Arab armies was not brought about by the might of the Israeli army but rather by the flaws of Arab society. Today these flaws are deeper than ever!

Currently, the tragic reality today is that Aleppo is all but a foregone conclusion, for the city is essential to consolidate Russian-Iranian-Syrian regime control over Western Syria. It’s clear from Secretary Kerry’s statements that the U.S. will not go to war with Russia over Aleppo. But that does not mean that the U.S. and the international community should not apply significant pressure, including by proxy, on Russia and the Syrian regime to stop their indiscriminate warfare. This begs the essential question following the day after the likely fall of Aleppo: How to change the dynamics in Syria in favor of the moderate opposition without creating a bigger war and tragedy. Until a new American administration moves into the White House, this remains to be seen.

This article was published at Syria Comment.

*Robert G. Rabil is a professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University. He is the author of a number of books including Syria, United States and the War on Terror in the Middle East (2006); Religion, National Identity and Confessional Politics in Lebanon: The Challenge of Islamism (2011); Salafism in Lebanon: Apoliticism to Transnational Jihadism (2014); and The Syrian Refugee Crisis in Lebanon: The Double Tragedy of Refugees and Impacted Host Communities (2016). The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those at FAU. Dr. Rabil can be followed @robertgrabil.

[i] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change: The White House Years 1953-1956 (New York: Doubleday, 1963), p. 252.

[ii] John Foster Dulles, Economic and Military Cooperation with Nations in the General Area of the Middle East, (Washington, DC: GPO, January 1957), pp. 2-5.

[iii] DOS, AFP: Current Documents 1957 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1961), pp. 816-817.  

[iv] Ministere Syrienne des Affaires Etrangeres, Declaration du Gouvernment Syrien au Sujet du Projet du President Eisenhower (Damas: Bureau des Documentations Syriennes et Arabes, Janvier 10, 1957), p. 1.

[v] DOS, AFP: Current Documents 1957, p.1036.

[vi] DOS, AFP: Current Documents 1966 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1969), p. 525.

[vii] Ibid., pp. 530-531.

[viii] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 738.

Iran Blames UAE For Fostering Warmongering Policies In Region

0
0

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi said on Sunday that United Arab Emirates distanced itself from the traditional conservative role of the past, opting for encouraging the radical players and warmongers in the region.

Qasemi made the remarks in response to statement made by UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the 71st UN General Assembly meeting.

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that what puts the region on the verge of catastrophe is the supportive policies for Takfiri terrorism, Qasemi said.

Noting that the three Persian Gulf Iranian islands are inseparable parts of the Iranian territory, he said that repetition of baseless claims cannot change the historical realities.

Underlining the need to adopt realistic and anti-terror policies by all the regional countries, the spokesman advised the UAE foreign minister to refrain from the repetition of illogical and baseless claims

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images