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

Saudi Arabia Reelected To UN Human Rights Council – OpEd

0
0

As the death toll in Yemen surpasses 10,000, Saudi Arabia, one of the principal parties in the conflict, is poised to be reelected to the UN human rights body. Saudi airstrikes are responsible for the majority of the nearly 4,000 civilian deaths in Yemen.

A secret ballot vote at the UN General Assembly on Friday will select the 14 members of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), or a third of its 47 members. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, China, and Japan are running for the four seats from the Asia-Pacific region, and are all expected to secure seats.

Riyadh’s term at the UNHRC would be the third in a row, and its presence at the body has been increasingly puzzling to human rights groups, given its record of twisting arms at the UN to hush up its rights abuses.

In June, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon publicly admitted that Saudi Arabia threatened to withdraw funding from numerous programs due to an upcoming report on violations of children’s rights. The report would list the Arab kingdom among violators over the toll its military campaign and blockade of Yemen has taken on children. The threat resulted in Saudi Arabia’s removal from the blacklist, even though Riyadh’s tactics had been exposed.

“The report describes horrors no child should have to face,” Ban Ki-moon told reporters at the time. “At the same time, I also had to consider the very real prospect that millions of other children would suffer grievously if, as was suggested to me, countries would defund many UN programs.”

“It is unacceptable for UN member states to exert undue pressure,” the secretary-general added, pledging to review the removal of the Saudis from the list.

This incident of Saudi Arabia working against UN human rights efforts is far from being isolated. In Yemen, the kingdom used control of air traffic to prevent foreign journalists, employees of international aid organizations, and UN officials from visiting the war-torn country and reporting on the situation there.

In September, it used diplomatic pressure against the Netherlands after it introduced a resolution at the UNHRC that would launch an independent investigation into airstrikes on Yemen. The Dutch proposal failed and an Arab version was passed, one which entrusted the probe to the exiled Yemeni government, which the Saudis want to put back into power through its military actions.

Domestically, Riyadh’s policies often run against those of the UN human rights body. Seven petitions to allow special rapporteurs for the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights to investigate abuses in Saudi Arabia remain pending, some for over a decade.

The kingdom was also reported to persecute its own subjects who cooperate with UN investigations. For instance, human rights defender Mohammed al-Qahtani, who contributed to several UNHRC reports, was accused of things like “distorting the reputation of the country” and “provoking international organizations to adopt stances against the kingdom.” He is currently serving a lengthy prison term.

While far from being the only authoritarian regime with a seat at the UNHRC, Saudi Arabia maintains some of the most restrictive domestic policies. Homosexuality and conversion from Islam to another religion are punishable by death. Sentences include corporal punishment, as highlighted by the case of blogger Raif Badawi who is to be flogged 1,000 times while serving a 10-year sentence for “insulting Islam.”

Saudi Arabia is also one of the world’s most enthusiastic executors. The number of beheadings spiked under King Salman with 157 executions reported in 2015, and 124 between January and September 2016.


Georgia: PM Kvirikashvili Doesn’t Rule Out Minor Changes In Government

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili did not rule out “minor changes” to reduce the number of the ministries, but noted that no ministries dealing with economic issues will be merged.

“It’s better to wait until the elections are over. As you know, the second round runoffs will be held on October 30,” PM Kvirikashvili told reporters on October 26. “There is certain time left for the government to face the confidence vote in the parliament. and it is not ruled out that some changes will take place in respect of the ministries.”

“No merger of ministries from the government’s economic bloc is planned, but minor changes are expected. Consultations with the cabinet members are still underway,” he said without elaborating details in Gardabani, where he attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of 230 MW combined-cycle power plant with an estimated cost of USD 159 million. The project, which is funded by Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation, will be implemented by China Tianchen Engineering Corporation.

Currently, the cabinet has 16 ministries and three offices of the state ministers. Before the general elections, many parties have called for further slimming down the size of the cabinet.

The new cabinet would be voted in once the new Parliament convenes. The Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia (GDDG) is set to command a large majority, having already won 67 seats in 150-seat parliament and being the front-runner in most of the 50 runoffs. PM Kvirikashvili is to keep his post and will propose the new composition of the cabinet within a week after the Parliament is convened. The Cabinet is approved if 76 MPs vote for it.

Kasparov Says Confrontation With West Is Putin’s ‘No. 1 Goal’

0
0

Kremlin foe Garry Kasparov says President Vladimir Putin is resorting to “external aggression” and increased confrontation with the West to bolster his image as Russia’s leader and maintain a “dictatorship” in the country.

Talking to RFE/RL’s Russian Service correspondent Mikhail Sokolov on the sidelines of a forum in Vilnius organized by the Open Russia online opposition group on October 15, the former world chess champion and Russian opposition figure said Putin had managed to impose “one-man rule” backed by a “fascist ideology” that helped destroy perceived enemies within the country.

But with economic conditions worsening, Kasparov said, the Kremlin had been forced to point out “enemies” outside Russia.

Russian authorities have intensified their crackdown on independent media, civil society, and the political opposition since Putin began his third term as president in 2012.

Kasparov fled to the United States after he was detained by Russian police at a 2012 rally in support of the punk art collective Pussy Riot, three of whose female members were on trial for an anti-Kremlin disturbance at the time.

“Confrontation with the West is Putin’s No. 1 goal,” Kasparov said in Vilnius, adding that Putin needs to “maintain his image of an invulnerable leader who is the only one capable of defending the country from external threats.”

Moscow’s relations with the West have sunk to levels of acrimony unseen since the end of the Cold War following Russia’s military seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in March 2014 and an ensuing war between Kyiv’s forces and Russia-backed separatists.

Ties have deteriorated further over the conflict in Syria, where a Russian bombardment campaign is backing President Bashar al-Assad, as well as U.S. accusations that Russia is behind hacking and electronic leaks targeting U.S. electoral institutions ahead of next month’s U.S. elections.

“Putin not only needs permanent confrontation with Europe and America, he needs to demonstrate constantly his own superiority to everyone,” Kasparov said.

He said that in the case of Syria, Putin’s moves were aimed at demonstrating that Western leaders’ repeated calls for Assad to step down over his brutal treatment of Syrians since unrest began nearly six years ago “mean nothing.”

On Ukraine, Kasparov said Crimea’s annexation was a “crime” that was committed in violation of the Russian Constitution, Russian laws, and international treaties at a time when Russia’s internal political opposition was “practically fully destroyed.”

“Crimea for Putin was part of a large-scale aggression against Ukraine, a violation of its sovereignty,” Kasparov said, adding that Kremlin-guided actions in Ukraine constituted “bandit activities.”

Putin eventually admitted to sending covert troops into Crimea, but Moscow continues to deny direct involvement in the fighting in other parts of eastern Ukraine despite what Western leaders say is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Kasparov also described as a “crime” Russia’s “de facto annexation” of Georgia’s separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after a lightning war in August 2008, while Putin was prime minister in between presidential terms. Georgia and Russia broke off diplomatic relations over the conflict, and Moscow maintains troops in both regions under what Tbilisi and Western allies regard as an occupation.

More recently, Kasparov said, alleged cyberattacks on U.S. political institutions look like “an attempt [by the Kremlin] to create some sort of chaos” ahead of the November 8 elections in the United States.

Putin and other Russian officials have dismissed the U.S. allegations and suggested that more attention be paid to the substance of the leaks and hacks.

Kasparov warned that nothing restricts Putin from expanding his power beyond Russia because the West “has always stepped back” in order to avoid a potentially large confrontation.

Kasparov called on Western leaders to show “political will” and oppose Putin’s foreign policies, including through maintained financial and other sanctions imposed over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

“We see many politicians and businesspeople in Europe who say that the sanctions against Russia should be lifted and Crimea’s illegal annexation from Ukraine should be ignored for the sake of doing business with Russia,” Kasparov said. “But I think that this situation is gradually changing.”

Written by Antoine Blua in Prague based on an interview by RFE/RL Russian Service correspondent Mikhail Sokolov.

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman Reiterates Support For Syrians

0
0

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman met with Riad Hijab, the general coordinator of the Supreme Commission for Negotiations of the Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, and members of the commission at Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh on Tuesday.

The king confirmed Saudi Arabia’s support to the Syrian people to achieve their aspirations, ease their sufferings and help them overcome their current crisis. King Salman also emphasized the support of the Kingdom in reaching a political solution to the Syrian crisis in accordance with the Geneva 1 statement.

The meeting also discussed the latest developments in Syria.

Hijab expressed thanks and appreciation to the king for the support and stand of Saudi Arabia and its role in supporting the Syrian people. The commission said in its statement that the king praised the role of the commission and its comprehensive vision for a political solution based on United Nation resolutions.

The statement said the talks discussed the deteriorating situation in Syria and the crimes the Syrian people face from the Assad regime, Russia and Iranian sectarian militias. The meeting also discussed the conditions of the Syrian citizens in the Kingdom, as visitors and residents, in terms of education, medical treatment and the possibility of exempting them from any relevant fees in addition to granting them work permits.

Iraq: Coalition Forces Claim Mosul Offensive Drawing To Close

0
0

The Mosul offensive is drawing to an end and that the Daesh de facto capital in Iraq would soon be made Daesh-free, military sources said in a statement issued on Tuesday.

A small distance of five to six kilometers keeps Iraqi forces away from center city.

Elite counterterrorism forces’ Maj.Gen. Maan al-Saadi said that forces have advanced all the way to Mosul city’s outliers and currently await reinforcement to march into the Daesh definitive stronghold.

What remains are fears on the aftermath of freeing Mosul from Daesh, especially with areas suffering greatly from sectarian rifts, namely Tal Afar, which is a ticking bomb, said Nineveh’s MP Ahmed al-Jarba told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Counterterrorism forces restored control over Rutbah, a small borderline town located near Jordan in Iraq’s western Anbar province, after Daesh took over most of its neighborhoods.

Anbar council member Jasem Al Asaal said that Iraq forces were able to successfully drive Daesh fighters out of the last two grips the terror group had in Rutbah.

More so, the U.S.-led international coalition held a meeting in Paris on Tuesday, to review the offensive on the militant bastion.

With the Mosul battle in its second week, French President Francois Hollande called for the coalition to prepare for the aftermath and the next stages of the campaign against the militants.

As the ministers met, Hollande warned that “the recapture is not an end in itself. We must already anticipate the consequences of the fall of Mosul.”

“What is at stake is the political future of the city, the region and Iraq,” Hollande said, calling for “all ethnic and religious groups” to have a say in the future running of Mosul.

By Hamza Mustafa, original source

In Historic Move US Abstains In Annual UN Vote On Ending Embargo Against Cuba

0
0

In a near unanimous action, the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a resolution underlining the need to end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba, while also welcoming progress in the relations between the two countries.

But, for the first time in the 25 year history of the annual vote, the United States, rather than opposing the text, cast an abstention, along with Israel. This year, 191 of the Assembly’s 193 Members voted in favour of the text which welcomed the progress in the relations between the two countries as well as the visit of US President, Barack Obama to Cuba in March 2016.

Noting of the steps taken by the US Administration towards modifying some aspects of the implementation of the embargo, the Assembly deemed such steps “positive, [but] still limited in scope.”

The Assembly further reiterated its call to all UN Member States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures not conforming with their obligations under the UN Charter and international law, which reaffirm freedom of trade and navigation.

The Assembly “once again urges States that have and continue to apply such laws and measures to take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible,” the resolution added.

Thailand: ‘Sufficiency Economics’ King Bhumibol’s Best Legacy – Analysis

0
0

By Lim Kooi Fong*

One of the most enduring images of the late Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej is that he is almost always seen with a camera around his neck or in his hand during his time visiting regions within Thailand, checking on projects, which he personally supported and followed up.For over 70 years of his reign,

Thailand’s much loved monarch kept a promise – the promise that he would reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people.

In 1997 when Thailand suffered its worst economic crisis in living memory, he came up with his now trademark ‘Sufficiency Economics’ theory, based on Buddhist principles to help alleviate the suffering of his people – especially the mental condition. The theory was based on the experience of over 40 years in helping his people to adopt a sustainable development model.

As of 1998, there were 2,159 royal development projects initiated by the King and implemented throughout the country.  Most of the projects are aimed at improving the living conditions of his subjects, particularly those in the remote rural areas.

Sometimes he would use his own funds in the early stages to help a project get off the ground. In 1988, he established the Chaipattana Foundation to fund and help in accelerating rural development projects that are beneficial to the people and the country as a whole.

The off-shoot of his passion for the deprived sections of the Thai people is his ‘New Theory’ in land management and the development of water sources for agricultural purposes. The ‘New Theory’ was a simple formula: 30-30-30-10.

Under this theory, a plot of land was divided into four portions, namely 30 percent for a water source, 30 percent for a rice field, 30 percent for mixed crops such as fruit trees and vegetables and 10 percent for residence, animal farms and rice barns.

Farmers who followed the ‘new theory’ found the plan to be uncomplicated and easily implementable. It also did not involve costly technology. Many who tried and tested the system produced satisfactory results. Consequently, large sections of the farming communities became self-sufficient and self-reliant.

In the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which negatively impacted his country greatly, the King suggested a self-sufficient economy as a way to pull Thailand out of the economic crisis. The idea was that all Thais should live a life that leaves them with enough to eat, while relying on their own economy.

Sufficiency Economy called for research and development on soil and crop improvement, with effort to produce enough for Thailand’s own consumption first.

As a country governed on Buddhist values, the philosophy of sufficiency economy stresses the middle path as an overriding principle for appropriate conduct by the populace at all levels. In a sufficient economy, generation of material wealth is not the ultimate aim. Instead the final goal is to create environmentally healthy, self-sufficient communities in which basic human needs are met through Iocal natural production methods.

A typical example of a sufficiency economy in operation is how a monk from Wat Doi Pha Som in Chiang Mai and his local community used the principles of sufficiency economy to undertake an environmental revitalization process in the Samoeng District.

When farmers from the village of Samoeng first approached local monk Phra Sangkom Thanapanyo Khunsiri they told him of their problems in producing quality crops. What Phra Sangkom and his consultants found was that the soil quality in the local area was very dry with little nutrients, and thus provided limited growth potential for crops.

The key in addressing the issue of water scarcity was creating environmental structures that retained natural water resources (mountain springs and rain water). The rainy season was capable of providing sufficient water resources to support the needs of both a thriving forest ecosystem and local agricultural practice.

Deforestation of the land in favor of expansive farmlands removed necessary natural structures for water retention and increased water lost to run-off, which left the area’s soils thirsting during the non-rainy season months. The monk’s initial development projects constructed a long network of check dams, which are able to retain natural water resources in a series of small reservoirs. The construction of the check dam system involved local community members, military personnel and government officials.

The collaboration between both local and external organizations was key In Wat Doi Pha Som’s sustainable development scheme. Twelve months after the check dams’ construction, the moisture content and growth potential of the local soil steadily increased. Currently there are over 100 check dams of different sizes [0.25m-2m] in the Hoi Bong watershed.

Reforestation efforts during the first year of development complemented the check dam network by supporting the soil’s ability to retain natural water resources. Plants regarded in the ‘sufficiency economy’ categories as “resourceful plants” i.e. for food, usage and economic, were prioritized.

These included banana, papaya, rice, guava, coconut, teak, bamboo and red wood. The local ecosystem then saw improvement in biodiversity and water retention. Not surprisingly, the habitat restoration became refuge for numerous birds and wildlife.

In the four years following the first year of the revitalization process, efforts continued to improve the system for natural water retention. The creation of a water line system involved upgrading wooden check dams to concrete and the creation of separate water storage reservoirs, known in Thai as “monkey cheeks’.

These storage reservoirs collect and diffuse moisture to surrounding soil and can be tapped to meet community needs during the dry season. During this time as well, the reforestation process continued. More resourceful plants were planted. As soil moisture increased, an increase in the number of annual harvests coincided.

The development of the alternative energy is an essential component of Wat Doi Pha Som’s sustainable development scheme. Initial experimentation in the community has been a success in creating biofuel from locally grown sunflower oil and recycled cooking oil. Future development hopes to harvest clean energy through the construction of solar cells and small scale-hydroelectric dams.

The success of land revitalization as shown in the Samoeng District dispels the notion that regeneration of soil nutrients for each year’s crops is dependent on the use of expensive chemical fertilizers. Such “modern farming methods” usually compels the farmer to be financially indebted in the long term.

High investments as such have pushed many people to abandon their ancestral farming tradition and to take jobs in the nearest urban center, in this instance, Chiang Mai city, which is a two hour drive away.

The everlasting legacy of Thailand’s “Righteous King” could well be his Sufficiency Economics theory that Thailand could offer to the rest of the world. With Sustainable Development Goals the buzzword of UN agencies today, it is perhaps time that UNDP brushed up their Thailand Human Development Report 2007 on Sufficiency Economics.

If sufficiency economy works for that small time farmer in Samoeng District, it should too for that prairie farm owner in small town Wisconsin.

* This special feature is presented in association with The Buddhist Channel.

Fragile States Index And Afghanistan: Limited Scope For Use – Analysis

0
0

By Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy*

In the 2016 edition of the Fragile States Index (FSI) brought out by the Fund for Peace (FFP), Afghanistan is listed in ‘High Alert’, scoring 107.9 points. It is placed 28.3 points behind India (‘Elevated Warning’); and 6.2 points behind Pakistan (also in the ‘High Alert’).

All these scores were based on an assessment made using values placed on various indicators: Demographic Pressures, Refugees and IDPs, Uneven Economic Development, Group Grievance, Human Flight & Brain Drain, Poverty & Economic Decline, State Legitimacy, Public Services, Human Rights & Rule of Law, Security Apparatus, Factionalized Elites, and External Intervention.

However, the points of reference used for identifying, calculating or determining the values to be placed against each indicator for each country for each year, are unclear. Perhaps this is the bane of standardised reports on matters that cannot be truly standardised. While superficially, the report gives a general idea of the status of fragility of each country, the purpose and the use of the report ends there. The absence of specifics in the final report, particularly regarding how the parameters were evaluated in the contexts of their relationships with each other, sticks out jarringly.

An individual who is less informed regarding issues such as fragility of countries would be given an impression of a reality that is not always quite what it appears as on the surface – and that is intellectual disservice, and, needless to say, defeats the purpose of undertaking the task itself. Moreover, bringing out standardised reports to illustrate the fragility of states becomes further complicated when conflict ridden states are assessed along with those who are not equally conflict ridden or who may or may not share similarities in contexts vis-à-vis the persistence of conflict.

In cases such as Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria, the situation on the ground has been known to change rapidly – and almost even on a daily basis. That the report in question which was published on 27 June 2016 is a collection of findings based on data collected between 01 January 2015 and 31 December 2015, means it does not entirely capture the current state-of-affairs in Afghanistan in a succinct manner, and is also outdated to an extent. Perhaps it is also because mere numbers and rankings can hardly ever deliver contextual explanation of complex situations beyond a certain point.

However, the 2016 FSI does attribute 9.9 points under External Intervention, 8.8 points under Factionalized Elites, 10 points under Security Apparatus, 8.7 under Human Rights and Rule of Law, and 9.1 under State Legitimacy categories. To a fair extent, these rankings can still hold true in the case of Afghanistan. Nonetheless, it still raises some questions such as: what all forms of external interventions were taken into consideration while assessing Afghanistan’s External Intervention rank? Was it just the foreign assistance, or were covert actions by some countries to undermine security in Afghanistan also considered? If only one of these were taken into account, then the assessment would be incomplete. If both were taken into account, how were these two very different forms of interventions assessed? As regard to Rule of Law and Human Rights, the state of affairs requires to be assessed based on how much of it was brought about by the state and how much of it was brought about by non-state actors. This distinction is unclear in the rankings and in the text of the report, because Afghanistan was once completely under terrorist control and has moved forward to the current day status. Conversely, Pakistan, whose territory has never completely been under terrorist control, has deteriorated in many ways in that category. Yet, Afghanistan is ranked behind Pakistan in this category.

Moreover, the Afghanistan scored +5.6 in the 2016 FSI’s assessment of Decade Trends, thus falling in ‘Some Worsening’. But at present – politically, economically, and security-wise – the country is in a situation in which is far worse than what it was in 2006. ‘Some Worsening’ might not be an entirely appropriate term to describe the current situation in the country. Currently, according to reports, roughly 10 per cent of the country’s territory is not under the Afghan government control.

At present, in Afghanistan, political stability is a pipe dream; insecurity is at an all-time high; the army is extremely stretched, and experts have warned that the army runs a real risk of a collapse in a year if circumstances do not change; election and electoral reform related roadblocks and problems still persist; power brokers all over the country have begun align themselves; the geopolitics of this conflict has become further frustrated; the total outbound migration of Afghans was next only to those of Syrians; and governance is hostage to political tugs-of-war, retarding the pace of any attempt improve; criminal activities are witnessing a surge.

Overall, although the report shows that Afghanistan is in ‘High Alert’, the assessment is useful only to the extent that the readers are made aware that it is in that category – which too is an update nonetheless, but one that is of not much use. Lastly, the lack of clarity on the relationships between parameters (and related questions) make it difficult to use/quote the findings as compiled in the current form.

* Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy
Assistant Director, IPCS
E-mail: rajeshwari@ipcs.org


BRICS Summit In Goa Brought Terrorism To Fore, But Blunted By China – Analysis

0
0

By Bhaskar Roy*

At the 8th BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit held (October 15 to 16) in Goa, India revealed that the world was far from reaching a consensus on international terrorism, including cross-border terrorism. But there were take away which could grow in the future within the BRICS and outside it, concerning the world’s biggest threat.

BRICS was founded on the premise of economic and financial development among the member states and to challenge the stranglehold of Brettan Woods financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank on developing and less developed countries (LDCs). At the Goa summit, the BRICS agenda moved a little forward by leaders agreeing to establish the BRICS Agricultural Research platform, Railway Research Network, Sports Council and fast tracking the BRICS Rating Agency based on market-oriented principles among other things. The IMF, especially, requires urgent reform to properly accommodate the poorest of its members.

The BRICS New Developments Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) has been operationalised. It was also decided to hold an outreach summit of BRICS and BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Multi-Sectoral Technical Cooperation) countries which comprises Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

How far has BRICS advanced in its foundational agenda? There are questions about that. An economic/financial organisation like this would have smooth movement if there was a strategic coherence between all its five members including some economic balance. But Brazil and South Africa are in difficult economic states. China, Russia and India are the three who have economic stability but they also have to address difficult challenges. China has huge forex reserves but just sitting on all that money is no help. It is trying to invest abroad but cautiously as it, as always, ties in political gains. India has a comfortable foreign exchange cushion, but is dwarfed by China. Russia has suffered with the drop in oil and gas prices and growing or looming western sanctions making it dependent on China (even near subservient to China) as the Goa summit revealed regarding India’s push on cross-border terrorism and Pakistan based and backed terrorist groups.

Strategic symmetry between the big three is lacking. It is especially so between India and China. There is a serious lack of trust between the two. Chinese President Xi Jinping described the bilateral ties as “encouraging” while calling for “high-level communication and dialogue at all levels so as to expand consensus, improve mutual trust and deepen cooperation”. China has opposed India’s core interest and concerns leading to distrust.

The Russia-China strategic relations is really interdependence against the west. Xi told Russian President Vladimir Putin at Goa that the two countries should promote a “more equitable and reasonable international order”, a comment that none in the West and India will miss. That does not mean that their relationship is unblemished. The mistrust between the two are historical and circumstances have forced this partnership.

Although India-Russia relationship has been ‘critical in the post-war history, there have been problems in the post-Soviet Union era. Moscow flirting with Pakistan is (or was) a message that India was getting too close to the west and ignoring old friend Russia. But the bilateral meeting between Putin and Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have cleared perceptions, and India’s deals to purchase Russian military hardware amounting to over US $ 24 billion has reset the relationship. It is unlikely that Russia will sell anymore attack or transport helicopters to Pakistan. But Russia-Pakistan joint counter-terrorism drills may happen again, with encroachment of the Islamic State (Daesh) in Afghanistan near Pakistan’s borders. In Russia’s perception this development is a direct threat to Russia.

It was obvious to the BRICS and BIMSTEC members that India would raise terrorism and Pakistan sponsored terrorism including cross-border terrorism forcefully at the meetings. Mr Modi had declared it earlier at the G-20 meeting in China in September and the ASEAN meeting following that. It was part of India’s foreign policy thrust to isolate Pakistan internationally on terrorism, and labelling it as a state sponsor of terrorism. In his speech as the current chairman of the BRICS PM Modi said, “The most serious direct threat to our economic prosperity is terrorism. Tragically, the mothership is a country in India’s neighbourhood.” This was an expansion of India’s position at the UN that Pakistan was the “Ivy league of terrorism”.

The exclusion of India’s charge against Pakistan was not unsurprising. Most countries would not like to set up such a precedent that would lay open boundaries with unseen consequences. Most of the countries, though aware of Pakistan’s state policy on using terrorism, have diplomatic relations with Islamabad. No country would agree to reduce Pakistan to the position of North Korea or worse.

As Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sk. Hasina told an Indian daily just before the Goa summit she was under tremendous pressure in her country to sever diplomatic relationship with Pakistan, but was against such a move.

The Goa declaration, however, included ISIL/IS or Daesh and Jabat al-Nusra. These organisations are not linked to any country, whereas Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and Jaish-e-Mohamad (JEM) are Pakistan based and instruments of the Pakistani state, although both these organizations are UN designated terrorist organisations, this is ironic, but a consequence of global strategic politics.

Following the Goa Summit, China made its position on Pakistan emphatically clear. Asked to comment on PM Modi’s statement on Pakistan regarding terrorism, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokes woman Hua Chunying said “we also oppose the linking of terrorism to any specific country, ethnicity or religion. This is China’s consistent position”. She went on to say “Everyone knows that India and Pakistan are victims of terrorism. Pakistan has made huge efforts and great sacrifices in fighting terrorism. I think the international community should respect this”. Then she delivered the punch line: China and Pakistan consider each other as “all weather friends” and have close diplomatic, economic and security ties.

The Chinese have told India to desist from trying to drive a wedge between Beijing and Islamabad, or use a multilateral forum like the BRICS to corner a single country. Indian policy makers and politicians must learn from how China deals with North Korea on the nuclear weapons issue. Although criticizing Pyangyong periodically, it has given cover to this country to develop its nuclear weapons and medium to long range missiles. Beijing just cannot afford North Korea to unravel. Pakistan is China’s jewel in the crown in the region stretching from South Asia to the Gulf and Central Asia.

China is very well aware of the ISI’s jihadi ideology. It has suffered from that in the past but has managed to control the situation with secret and deft negotiations with various groups in Pakistan. It would not annoy those elements in the ISI and the jehadis lest they turn against it and create trouble in Xinjiang and Chinese interest in Pakistan. There are reportedly more than ten thousand Chinese in Pakistan that ten thousand Chinese in Pakistan working in various projects. More will come as work on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) progresses.

At the same time, China is not very comfortable in extending the technical hold on listing JEM leader Masood Azhar at the UN ad infinitum. While they have assured Pakistan they would continue with their position for some more time, they have reportedly asked for the “logic”. To lift their hold on Azhar, they will look for a bargain with the international community and a face saver. Further isolation of the Dalai Lama in the international stage could be a bargaining point.

What China is most concerned about is the Islamic state moving closer to their borders in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Daesh has already marked its presence here with defectors from several jihadi tanzims having joined it. There are many permutations and combinations the Daesh may explore in this geographical area. China and its interests may not be safe.

Although not directly connected with the BRICS summit, the BIMSTEC Leaders Retreat Outcome Document 2016 (Goa, Oct 17) was much stronger in language in condemning terrorism in the region. It said, “we condemn in the strongest terms the recent barbaric terror attacks in the region. We strongly believe that our fight against terrorism should not only seek to disrupt and eliminate terrorists, terror organisations and networks, but should also identify, hold accountable and take strong measures against states who encourage, support and finance terrorism, provide sanctuary to terrorists and terror groups, and falsely extol their virtues”.

No names were taken. But nothing was left to the imagination. The target was obvious – Pakistan. The variation from the BRICS statement was clear. How the BRICS moves forward at the next session in China needs to be watched. Terrorism is one subject that will find a place. India would have to approach that with greater finesse.

*The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

Spain Finally Has New Government: What Lies Ahead? – Analysis

0
0

By William Chislett*

Spain’s minority Popular Party (PP) government, which will be voted in by parliament before the end of October after a 10-month limbo period following inconclusive elections last December and June, has a lot on its plate.

A third election during the Christmas period was narrowly averted when the opposition Socialist party (PSOE), with 85 of the 350 seats in parliament, reluctantly agreed eight days before the 31 October deadline for triggering a new poll, to abstain at the investiture vote and so enable the PP, with 137 seats, to continue at the helm. Had there been a third election Spain might have rivalled the 541 days it took Belgium to form a functioning government in 2010-11.

Given the wrangling, the result of two new parties –the far left Unidos Podemos and the centrist Ciudadanos (C’s)– upending the two that have dominated political life for more than 30 years, 2016 has been a lost year. These two parties in the deeply fragmented parliament have 71 and 32 seats, respectively.

Ciudadanos agreed after the June election to allow the PP to remain in government, in return for some reforms, but their seats were not enough to carry the day. Hence the Socialists’ grudging abstention, but only after their leader, Pedro Sánchez, was ousted in October for persistently refusing to back the PP. He also failed to come up with a realistic alternative government and rejected a third election where the Socialists risked being overtaken by Podemos, which would be a devastating blow.

The Ibex-35, the benchmark index of the Spanish stock market, greeted the end to the impasse with a rise of more than 1% and Spain’s risk premium declined. But the political gridlock is not over. Parliamentary life will now be much more vibrant, as the PP’s loss of the absolute majority of 186 seats it enjoyed in the previous parliament means it will have to fight for every law it hopes to pass. Even with C’s support, and this is not guaranteed all the time, the PP is still seven seats short of a majority. This is an unprecedented situation and depending on how it evolves could be a healthy one if it forges a much-needed culture of consensus.

Polls show that Spaniards do not want to return to the two-party system and nor are they enamoured of governments with an absolute majority, whatever the political colour.

The PP will also not be able to rely on the so-called royal decrees (emergency laws), which it used (abused in the view of opposition parties) between December 2011 and December 2015 more than any other government, even though it had an absolute majority.

The government’s first test, and a crucial one, is to approve the 2017 budget and finally meet the EU deficit threshold of 3% of GDP. In the absence of a functioning government, and with a worried European Commission (EC) demanding a plan for 2017 by the middle of this month, the PP basically rolled over the 2016 budget.

The PP was supposed to lower the budget deficit to 3% this year, but that proved to be impossible after the government missed the targets in 2014 and 2015. Under the latest deal with the EC, the deficit has to be below 3% in 2018 or Spain will face a fine, which it narrowly missed this year. The latest forecast puts next year’s deficit at 3.6%, well above the 3.1% agreed with Brussels. The PP needs to find €5.5 billion of tax rises or spending cuts.

Other pressing issues in the government’s in-tray include reforms to prop up the ailing social security system (whose deficit is a major contributor to the overall budget deficit), particularly state pensions. The special reserve built up during the boom to help pay pensions during times of crisis will be depleted by the end of 2017. The mechanism for reforming the social security system is the all-party Toledo Pact, first signed in 1995.

Even more contentious is what to do about Catalan demands for a referendum on independence which the region’s government is planning to hold next September whether the government agrees or not. Barcelona’s every step in its roadmap of laws for an independent state, approved by a regional parliament with a majority of seats held by pro-secessionist parties, is being opposed by the Constitutional Court in Madrid. The PP did not let this issue out of the courts and into the political arena in its last government, but that may change now the party no longer has an absolute majority. There is still, however, a tremendous reluctance to change the 1978 constitution and rewrite the rules between the state and the regions, not the least reason being that it runs the risk of opening up a Pandora’s Box of competing demands.

The education system –with an early school-leaving rate of 20%, double the EU average but well down on a peak of 31% by 2009 at the height of the economic boom when pupils had moved en masse from the classroom to building sites– needs to be overhauled.

Measures to tackle corruption, perceived as endemic in the PP and the Socialist party, are also on the agenda. This is a particularly key issue for C’s as it agreed an anti-corruption pact with the PP earlier this year in return for supporting a new PP government. The PP is currently under intense scrutiny in the so-called Gürtel case of kickbacks for contracts.

In foreign policy, Spain has been largely absent in the debates about the EU’s future, following the UK’s Brexit decision. Its voice has been loudest on one particular issue, dear to the heart of the PP but not to the rest of the EU, and that is the call for Gibraltar, a UK overseas territory long claimed by Madrid, to share sovereignty with Spain as the only way post-Brexit for the Rock to still have access to the single market.

No one is confidently predicting in these new circumstances that the new government will last the normal course of four years. If the same gridlock that prevented the forming of a new government for 10 months hits parliament then a frustrated PP could call an early election. Whether it would increase its share of the vote, as polls showed had a third election gone ahead in December, and even perhaps win a governing majority, may well depend on how the other parties shape up.

About the author:
*William Chislett
, Associate Analyst at the Elcano Royal Institute | @WilliamChislet3

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute.

The Mexican Government’s Faulty Immigration Policy – Analysis

0
0

By Alejandra Castillo*

At the September 19, 2016 convention of the first United Nations Summit for Refugees an­­d Migrants, Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto addressed the assembly, calling on world leaders to rise in a collective effort to alleviate the global humanitarian crisis. Delivering a compelling statement, Peña Nieto reiterated Mexico’s commitment to securing a global agreement for a safe and orderly process of migration. Peña Nieto assured the world that Mexico has always been a place of “origin, transit, destination, and return for people” and will remain so, as no man-made barrier in history has ever been successful at stopping human movement.[i] In part, Peña Nieto’s discourse at the UN was a response to how Mexican migration to the United States has become a heated point of discussion during that country’s presidential elections. As a result, Peña Nieto has sought to present himself as a defender of immigrant rights, willing to stand up to xenophobia, specifically, to Donald Trump’s rhetoric.

However, U.S. public and media attention on the issue of immigration has remained almost completely focused on the northern Mexican border and fine points of U.S. immigration policy. In contrast, Mexico’s “other” border—the southern border—has fallen in the shadow of media coverage even as it has become the primary transit route for Central American migrants fleeing escalating violence in the region. Meanwhile, since the start of President Peña Nieto’s Programa Frontera Sur in 2014 and under pressure from the U.S. government, Mexico has gradually enforced strict immigration policies aimed at shutting down transit lines along its southern border. As several reports have shown, however, these crackdowns are accompanied by increased human rights violations against Central American migrants.[ii] Coupled with the alarming rise in apprehensions along Mexico’s southern border since the start of Programa Frontera Sur, Peña Nieto’s recent claims on the benevolence of Mexico’s immigration policies ring hollow. On the contrary, data generated over the two-years of Programa Frontera Sur indicates that Mexico continues to prioritize the detention and deportation of migrants, instead of investing in their safety.

Mexico’s Changing Role

According to the Pew Research Center, between 2009 and 2014, 870,000 Mexican nationals came to the U.S., compared to the 2.9 million who left Mexico for the U.S. between 1995 and 2000.[iii] This drop in Mexican migration coincides with the results a 2015 Pew Research Center survey completed in Mexico, which shows that, while the prospect of living in the U.S. has not lost its allure, there is a shifting view of the living conditions in Mexico. The results of a 2015 survey indicated that 33 percent of Mexican adults said life in the U.S. is neither better nor worse than life in Mexico, a 23 percent from the 2007 survey. At the same time, data trends over the past decade have depicted Mexico’s evolving role into a country of transit for rising numbers of Central American refugees. Additionally, the renewal of diplomatic relations between the U.S and Cuba has lead to a growth of transitory migrants from the island nation. The number of Cubans traveling through Mexico in order to reach the U.S. during fiscal 2015 showed a 78 percent growth over 2014.

The largest increase of transitory migrants came from the huge wave of Central Americans, principally from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, crossing Mexico to reach the United States. Apprehensions of Central Americans at the U.S.-Mexico border doubled between October 1, 2015 and January 31, 2016, in comparison to the same period the previous year. Over that same time period, Mexico deported around 150,000 Central Americans, signaling a 44 percent increase over the previous year.[iv] In spite of the overall decline of Mexican immigrants seeking to cross into the United States, they still outpace Central American migrants as the largest population group entering the U.S. without authorization.

Programa Frontera Sur

Following the unprecedented surge in Central American child migrants and family units crossing the U.S.-Mexico border during 2014, Mexico increased its immigration enforcement efforts with the encouragement of the United States. On July 7, 2014 President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Programa Frontera Sur, a border plan that aimed to increase security at 12 points of entry with Guatemala and Belize, as well as several popular migration routes across the country, in order to promote regional security and prosperity.[v] As a result of the implementation of Programa Frontera Sur, the numbers of migrants apprehended along the northern Mexican borders decreased over 2015 and projections generated by think tanks and government research agencies predicted a similar decline over 2016. Contrary to these predictions, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) program revealed statistics earlier this year indicating an increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied children and small family units throughout the first six months of fiscal 2016.[vi]

Along Mexico’s southern border, the growing number of apprehensions skyrocketed over fiscal year 2015. According to data compiled by Unidad de Politica Migratoria[vii] (branch of Mexico’s Secretariat of Interior) in 2015 there were 198,141 apprehensions of illegal immigrants, 90 percent of whom were from Central America. This figure beats the record number for the past six years. Over 2016 there have been 99,768 arrests, reflecting a slight decrease of 17 percent from 2015. Nevertheless the 2016 figure remains 63 percent higher than the one from 2014 (61,092) and 88 percent higher than 2013’s (52,906).[viii]

This increase in detentions along Mexico’s southern border correlates with efforts by the Mexican government to seize control over the country’s railroad system. In August of 2016, Mexico’s Communications and Transport Ministry reclaimed ownership of the cross-country railroad line known as “La Bestia” (“The Beast”) that has long been used by Central American migrants to traverse Mexico en route to the United States. According to Animal Politico the government’s seizing of La Bestia is one in a series of similar efforts to close down the railroads, which has resulted in the apprehension of 2,351 migrants. This pattern of apprehension and deportations of Central American migrants is something President Peña Nieto confirmed last month, on September 3 in his meeting with Donald Trump. While Peña Nieto engages in discussion on whether he did or did not agree to build a wall by Mexico’s northern border, he did see eye to eye with Trump on the need to strengthen Mexico’s southern border.

But over the same time period on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, there were 27,754 apprehensions of unaccompanied children—indicating a 78 percent jump from the 15,616 apprehended in 2015. This number becomes particularly alarming when compared to the 28,579 apprehensions that occurred during the “height of the humanitarian crisis” in fiscal year 2014, clearly calling into question the effectiveness of Mexico’s Programa Frontera Sur.

Mounting Human Rights Abuses

Along with the heightened crackdown on Central American migrants, data indicates that Mexico also retained its very restrictive policy towards those fleeing gang violence. In effect, 21 percent of all applicants were granted asylum in 2013 (280 out of 1,296 requests) and 2014 (456 out of 2,137).[ix] The rate climbed to 27 percent in 2015 with 949 approved demands out of 3,424. Finally, in the first six months of 2016 an unprecedented record of 3,486 applications was submitted, of which, only 35 percent were approved. While asylum seekers between 2013 and 2016 increased by 169 percent (1,296 to 3,486) the funds allocated by the Comisión Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados (COMAR), (roughly translated as the Mexican Commission on Refugees) have remained well below $2 million USD. This pales in comparison with the $86 million USD budget for the Instituto Nacional de Migracion—in charge of, amongst other functions, the detention and eventual deportation of undocumented migrants.[x] The vast gap in these numbers suggests, at the very least, a contradiction between the open-armed Mexico portrayed in Peña Nieto’s rhetoric and the reality of Mexico’s approach on the ground, to the situation. Mexico’s ascent to prioritize the deportation and detention of migrants instead of investing in their safety has been widely reported upon.

To begin with, research suggests that Mexico’s migrant deportations in many cases are arbitrary, and those who might qualify as asylum-seekers encounter a series of life-endangering situations.” [xi] The Human Rights Watch, for example, published a report last March revealing that less than 1 percent of all minors detained by Mexican authorities are granted refugee status.[xii] This report suggests that this alarmingly low number may be attributed to how migratory agents fail to inform young migrants or their representatives of their right to seek asylum. Thus, authorities withhold case-by-case legal advice and let an overwhelming number of endangered individuals slip right through their fingers.

While Mexico demands that the United States treat immigrants with dignity, it simultaneously turns on the Central American migrants, negating their basic rights. Data demonstrates how Mexico continues to prioritize deportations over policies to protect migrants who might be fleeing dangerous situations. This disparity may largely be an unintended consequence of Peña Nieto’s Programa Frontera Sur. Theoretically; one of its five pillars targets the protection of undocumented migrants. In practice, the increased migratory control along Mexico’s southern border has forced Central Americans to look for alternative routes to the US, making them vulnerable to organized crime, extortion, and local delinquents. Over the year after Programa Frontera Sur was implemented, there was an overall increase of 4.7 percent in crimes against migrants recorded in four Mexican southern border states: Tabasco, Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz. The more specific the reports on crimes get, the more drastic the numbers. The crimes specifically reported as theft, robbery (violent), and assault in Tabasco, Chiapas and Oaxaca totaled 232 between July 2014 and April 2015. This number is 81 percent higher than the previous year’s—July 2013 to April 2014—when 178 reports from the same three states were initially recorded.

Many emerging reports on the consequences of Programa Frontera Sur highlight the human toll that increased regulation has taken on migrants attempting to cross into Mexico. Overall, the studies converge at this central point: that instead of deterring unauthorized immigration, Programa Frontera Sur has dispersed many displaced people and made them vulnerable to extortionists, rapists, and thieves lurking along the many routes to the United States. The Peña Nieto administration shares a substantial amount of the responsibility for this outcome with its northern neighbor. The U.S. allocated 75 million USD for Mexico’s National Migration Institute—the institution responsible for Programa Frontera Sur—in 2016 alone.[xiii] Contrary to some speculation, this amount is not to be invested into the construction of a physical wall across Mexico’s southern border.[xiv] Instead, the funds are meant to entice Mexico into securing its southern border—likely through the endeavors of Programa Frontera Sur.

In the words of the Mexican president at the UN summit, “We have a pending commitment to [migrants] that we all must assume, because migration represents not only the past and the present of mankind, but also its future.” [xv] But the rise of human rights abuses of Central American migrants resulting from the Programa Frontera Sur contradicts Peña Nieto’s pro-immigrant rhetoric. To resolve this crisis the Mexican government has to stop replicating the United States’ militarized security-based approach to deterring migration. Instead of spending more money on the failed Programa Frontera Sur, Mexico should invest its resources to strengthen institutions like COMAR that finally hope to approach migration from a committed humanitarian perspective.

*Alejandra Castillo, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[i] Peña Nieto, Enrique. “Address by Enrique Peña Nieto President of the United States.” Unmeetings.org. September 19, 2016. Accessed October 5, 2016. http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7660341/mexico.pdf

[ii] Ureste, Manu. “Peña Defiende a Migrantes En La ONU, Pero En México Aumentan Deportaciones Y Agresiones.” Animal Politico. September 20, 2016. Accessed October 10, 2016. http://www.animalpolitico.com/2016/09/pena-migrantes-onu-deportaciones/.

[iii] Krogstad, Jens Manuel. “5 Facts about Mexico and Immigration to the U.S.” Pew Research Center. February 11, 2016. Accessed October 5, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/11/mexico-and-immigration-to-us/.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] “CRS Report US Assistance Mexico Southern Border Plan March …” Accessed October 20, 2016. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842650-CRS-Report-US-Assistance-Mexico-Southern-Border.html.

[vi] Lillis, Mike. “Illegal Immigrant Numbers Skyrocket at Mexican Border …” The Hill. May 5, 2016. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://thehill.com/latino/278785-migrant-numbers-skyrocket-at-mexican-border

[vii] “Boletines Estadísticos – Secretaría De Gobernación.” SEGOB- Secretaria De Gobernacion. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.politicamigratoria.gob.mx/es_mx/SEGOB/Boletines_Estadisticos.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] “ESTADÍSTICAS – 2013 a 2016.” COMAR – Comision Mexicana De Ayuda a Refugiados. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.comar.gob.mx/work/models/COMAR/Resource/267/6/images/ESTADISTICAS_2013_A_06-2016_act.pdf

[x] “PRESUPUESTO DE EGRESOS DE LA FEDERACIÓN PARA EL EJERCICIO FISCAL 2017.” Gob.mx. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://ppef.hacienda.gob.mx/work/models/PPEF2017/paquete/egresos/Proyecto_Decreto.pdf.

[xi] Suárez, Ximena, José Knippen Knippen, and Maureen Meyer. “A Trail of Impunity: Thousands of Migrants in Transit Face Abuses amid Mexico’s Crackdown.” Washington Report on the Hemisphere. September 2016. Accessed September/October 2016. https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/A-Trail-of-Impunity-2016.pdf

[xii] Ureste, Manu. “México Fracasa En Proteger a Niños Migrantes, Denuncia HRW; De 18 Mil Detenidos, Sólo Da Refugio a 57.” Animal Politico. September 31, 2016. Accessed October 14, 2016. http://www.animalpolitico.com/2016/03/mexico-fracasa-en-proteger-a-ninos-migrantes-no-acompanados-solo-dio-refugio-a-57-hrw/.

[xiii] Seelke, Clare Ribando, and Kristin Finlkea. “U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative …” Federation of American Scientists. February 22, 2016. Accessed October 20, 2016. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41349.pdf.

[xiv] LaCapria, Kim. “Wall-Lied”. Snopes.com. September 22, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.snopes.com/mexico-75-million-border-wall/.

[xv] Peña Nieto, Enrique. “Address by Enrique Peña Nieto President of the United States.” Unmeetings.org. September 19, 2016. Accessed October 5, 2016. http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/7660341/mexico.pdf.

NATO Boosts Eastern flank To Reassure Nervous Allies – Analysis

0
0

By Ana Maria Luca

The Western alliance has taken a significant step towards upping defensive capacities along its entire eastern flank amid growing concerns about Russia.

NATO member state officials meeting in Brussels agreed to boost the alliance’s military presence along its entire eastern flank from Bulgaria to the Baltics.

Romania and Bulgaria will both host an increased air force presence, designed to undertake surveillance missions over the Black Sea.

It is the biggest NATO deployment since the Cold War and comes as Russia pushes on with its biggest naval deployment since the Cold War, with the Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s only aircraft carrier, leading a convoy of eight ships towards the Eastern Mediterranean along the European coast.

This month, Russia also deployed nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad on the Baltic, increasing nervousness in Poland and in the Baltic states. Last month, Russia suspended a weapons-grade plutonium agreement with the United States.

Tensions between the West and Russia have mounted since Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014, as a result of which Western countries imposed sanctions on Moscow.

The breakdown of a ceasefire agreement in Syria, where Russia is supporting Bashar Al-Assad’s government and its offensive against rebel-held eastern Aleppo, has prompted the EU to consider fresh sanctions last week.

“I’m happy,” NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Wednesday after the talks in Brussels. He said several states had offered to contribute to an increased allied presence in the Black Sea region, including Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and the US.

Romania hails increased commitment to region

“Countries for the first time have expressed a willingness to financially participate to supporting security arrangements on the northeast flank [of NATO] as well as our Black Sea region,” Romanian Defence Minister Mihnea Motoc noted after the meetings.

Besides Romanian and Bulgarian airbases hosting NATO troops and aircraft, Romania is to also host a regional air force training centre. Starting next year, Romania also hopes to head a multinational force at the Black Sea.

In the meantime, 13 NATO member states, including Albania and Croatia, are going to contribute troops to four battalions – totaling roughly 4,000 troops – led by Canada, Germany, the UK and the US in the Baltic States and Poland.

Albania, Italy, Poland, Slovenia will contribute to the Canadian-led battalion in Latvia, Belgium, Croatia, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway will join the German-led battalion in Lithuania, while Denmark and France will contribute to the UK-led battalion in Estonia, Stoltenberg explained.

Romania and Britain will join a US-led battalion in Poland. The move was agreed on at last summer’s NATO summit in Warsaw.

Britain also announced on Wednesday that it would send Typhoon fighter jets to Romania next year and the US promised troops, tanks and artillery to Poland. Romania already hosts a US missile defence system at Deveselu, in southern Romania.

Canada and Poland will also send aircraft to Romania. The aircraft would be hosted in the southeastern Mihail Kogalniceanu military airport and will police NATO’s southeast flank.

Black Sea build-up postponed

Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey are also expected to come forward with a plan to increase naval and air patrols in the area by the beginning of 2017.

“The political decision is to task the allied forces to come up by the end of January with proposals on two basic elements for the maritime component – a strengthened training framework and a coordination body for the Black Sea that reports to the specialized NATO command,” Romania’s Motoc said after the Brussels meeting. Talks will be held on this in February 2017.

In the meantime, the US is seeking tighter exchanges of information with Bucharest.

At a meeting in Washington, where both states discussed their strategic partnership, the US agreed to support Romania in tightening security in the Black Sea, and its initiative to establish a multinational naval brigade in the Black Sea.

Deputy US Assistant Secretary for Russian affairs Kathleen Kavalec was in Bucharest on Wednesday to talk about developments. On Wednesday, she said Romania, and other countries on the Eastern flank, had a degree of experience in relations with Moscow that some Western states missed.

Bulgaria says decision is up to NATO

Bulgarian defence minister Nikolai Nenchev on Wednesday said Sofia and Bucharest would work together and define their takes on the increased NATO deployment in the Black Sea by December.

“I was against negotiating with Romania and Turkey on this aspect. Such a decision, if it is taken, should be made by NATO; it shouldn’t come from different countries in the Alliance. That is fair,” he said in Brussels. “We’ll meet in December to clarify the matter,” the minister added.

While the naval brigade is still on the agenda, Bulgaria has agreed to participate with 400 troops in the multinational brigade in Romania. The minister said Sofia had not been asked to send troops to the Baltics.

Fragile States Index And Nepal – Analysis

0
0

By Pramod Jaiswal*

The Fund for Peace’s (FFP) twelfth annual Fragile States Index (FSI) ranked 178 countries based on measures of their stability and the pressures they face. Initially called ‘Failed States Index’, it was renamed as ‘Fragile States Index’ in 2014 following severe criticism from several quarters. However, the report still continues to use the term ‘failed state’ interchangeably. The 2016 FSI report looks at four Social Indicators (Demographic Pressures, Refugees and IDPS, Group Grievance and Human Flight and Brain Drain), two Economic Indicators (Uneven Economic Development and Poverty and Economic Decline) and six Political and Military Indicators (Legitimacy of the State, Public Services, Human Rights and Rule of Law, Security Apparatus, Factionalized Elites and External Intervention) to rank countries around the world, intending to analyse their susceptibility towards being or becoming the fragile state.

The report is highly useful as it distills millions of pieces of information into a form that is suitable to analyse and easy to comprehend. It aims to take the understanding of weak and failing states beyond identifying and analysing broader social trends, by adopting the Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) analytical platform. Though there is lack of clarity in the report regarding what is meant by ‘fragile’; how a state is rendered fragile; or whether fragility is relative or absolute, it has successfully generated lively debate in South Asia. This article analyses the indicators provided by the report for Nepal, where the country’s ethnic groups carried out massive protests after the promulgation of the new constitution, leading to the disruption of India-Nepal border for months right after the massive earthquake that took around ten thousand lives.

The 2016 FSI report can be contested as it gives equal weightage to all the twelve indicators – four social indicators, two economic, and six political and military indicators – even though not all the indicators have equal potential to demonstrate a state as fragile state. Similarly, the FSI has given more importance to political and military indicators as it has six categories compared to Social (with four indicators) and Economic indicators (two categories). In fact, there are different factors for different countries that could demonstrate it as a fragile state.

Nepal, a country that is going through multiple transitions, is ranked 33rd in the present report, as opposed to the 36th and 31st position in 2015 and 2014 respectively. As in the 2015 report, Nepal is listed under the ‘Alert’ category. The report has rightly indicated the worsening situation in Nepal since the promulgation of the new constitution in September 2015.

The report rightly indicates the decline in the categories like demographic pressure, refugees, and IDPs and Group Grievances, which became the reality due to the massive earthquake that shook Nepal in 2015. However, it is unconvincing to note that there was some improvement in Human Flight and brain drain because the report states that due to the continuous aftershocks following the earthquake, there was a rise in outbound migration.

There were strong protests by Madhesis, Janajatis and other marginalised groups after the promulgation of the new constitution, which led to an ‘unofficial blockage’ for several months, which severely affected the economy of the country due to the resultant severe crisis of fuel and other essential supplies. This has been rightly reflected in the report, which shows an increase in uneven economic development, rise in poverty, and economic decline. There was also a worsening of delivery of public services during the KP Sharma Oli government in 2015 – and the index seems to be correct on this.

Surprisingly however, the report indicates improvement in the Human Rights and Rule of Law and Security Apparatus categories despite the fact that Nepal witnessed severe protest by Madhesis, Janajatis and marginalised groups, which had claimed over 50 lives. Nepal failed to crack down the protestors and ease the India-Nepal border though the Armed Police Force; and the Army was mobilised to control the situation. There were massive human rights violations in the southern plains of Nepal, an issue that has been raised by numerous human right organisations. Hence, the report is not so convincing vis-a-vis the improvement in the situation of Human Rights and Rule of Law.

The report states that there was no change in the Factionalised Elites category. However, the fact remains that like never before, there was massive polarisation among the elites of Nepal on the issues of constitution. Similarly, Nepalese women protested against the citizenship provision that discriminates against them. The report should have considered this issue. Interestingly, unlike the reports of the Nepali media, which reported massively about Indian interference in Nepal’s internal affairs, the report states that there was decrease in the external intervention.

While the situation in Nepal was further complicated by the KP Sharma Oli government, causing a worsening in Kathmandu-New Delhi relations, with the change in government, the situation is gradually normalising. The new government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ has promised to address the demands of Madhesi, Janajatis and other marginalised groups by amending the constitution. It is a challenging task. However, if he succeeds, Nepal will secure itself a better position in the FSI Index.

* Pramod Jaiswal
Senior Fellow, CRP, IPCS
E-mail: pramod.jaiswal@ipcs.org

Kurdistan Security Forces Arbitrarily Detaining Men, Boys Fleeing Fighting, Says HRW

0
0

Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) security forces are arbitrarily detaining men and boys ages 15 and over who are fleeing Mosul and Hawija during the offensive against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in a facility near the Debaga displaced persons camp, reports Human Rights Watch.

According to HRW, the men and boys fleeing from ISIS-held territory into the KRG are being detained for indefinite periods even after they pass an initial security check for possible ties to ISIS by KRG security forces. They are denied access to lawyers and detained, sometimes for weeks, even if they are not individually suspected of a crime, while KRG authorities conduct further security screenings on them. The only legal basis for detention under national law is individualized suspicion of having committed a crime recognized in the penal code, and individuals should only be detained under criminal justice system rules.

“By categorically detaining men and boys 15 and over fleeing ISIS-held territory as possible terrorism suspects, KRG authorities are ignoring basic due process guarantees under Iraqi and international law,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director. “No one should be detained unless there is reason to suspect them personally of criminal activity.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed eight men and five women who had recently escaped from ISIS-held territory and are now in the Debaga camp for displaced people. All said that after initial screening at checkpoints, in which some men were detained, the rest of those fleeing were taken to the camp, where all men and boys aged 15 and over were separated from their families and held in a fenced area for a secondary screening, sometimes for weeks.

On October 17, 2016, the Iraqi central government and KRG authorities, with the support of an international coalition, announced the start of military operations to retake Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which ISIS captured in June 2014. Anti-ISIS forces have also encircled the city of Hawija, 57 kilometers west of Kirkuk and 120 kilometers southeast of Mosul, which ISIS also captured in June 2014, and began operations to retake the city. An estimated 1.2 million civilians were in Mosul and an estimated 115,000 in Hawija at the start of the operations. Since the operations began, at least 8,940 people have fled into northern Syria, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, and elsewhere in Iraq.

Dr. Dindar Zebari, chairperson of the KRG’s High Committee to Evaluate and Respond to International Reports, provided Human Rights Watch with an explanation of KRG security force screening and detention processes for displaced persons. His explanation corroborated statements from the displaced persons interviewed by Human Rights Watch regarding the extent of the secondary screening process and the delays in executing the screenings, but also emphasized the KRG’s commitment to its human rights obligations.

Dr. Zebari said that all individuals migrating to the KRG are screened at checkpoints where their ID cards are checked against information compiled by intelligence and security agencies. He said that in addition to this, however, individuals coming from ISIS held territory are subjected to further screening. He explained that for these people, “further checks are conducted based on the intelligence agencies, national security agencies, and the local security agencies in the area.”

With regard to the Debaga camp, based on interviews with displaced people, Human Rights Watch believes that this secondary screening is happening in the fenced facility a few meters from the camp, but only for men and boys aged 15 and over.

Dr. Zebari did not give a time frame for how long these secondary screenings last, but explained that only after men and boys have passed this second screening are they transported to a displaced persons camp. He acknowledged that, “Indeed, at times this process may be time consuming based on the large number of internally displaced individuals who wish to enter the Kurdistan Region and the comprehensive process of gathering intelligence on an individual,” but emphasized “the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and its Asayish security forces employ serious efforts to heed to international standards of human rights in the security screening process.”

If individuals are found to represent a security risk, Dr. Zebari said, within 24 hours they should be transferred to special courts that determine guilt, but acknowledged that “in a few cases, legal procedures for those who are suspected IS-affiliates may become delayed due to the extremely large number of IDPs who have fled IS-held areas and wish to enter the Kurdistan Region. Another reason for the delay in detention facilities is the lack of security personnel who are available to carry out more comprehensive questioning due to a lack of financial resources.”

The only legal basis for detention under national law is individualized suspicion of having committed a crime recognized in the penal code, not simply for potentially representing a security threat based on place of residence, and individuals should only be detained under criminal justice system rules.

KRG authorities should promptly inform detainees of any charges against them and allow them to quickly challenge their detention before an independent judicial body, as Iraqi law requires. They can only be held and tried for suspicion of having committed a crime.

Under international law, children may be detained only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, and international standards state that children suspected of being recruited and used by ISIS should be treated primarily as victims, with a view to their recovery and reintegration, not punishment.

“We understand the practical need for security screening, but detaining all men and boys aged 15 and over simply because of where they are living is discriminatory, and these vulnerable people are being denied the protection they should be getting,” Fakih said. “Given what these men and boys have already endured, screening should be carried out quickly in a way that respects individual rights.”

Organizing In The Age Of Hillary – OpEd

0
0

The Hillary Clinton administration, Slick Willie part II, will bring catastrophe unless there is constant agitation waged against it. The same woman who bragged that her party platform was progressive now brags that Republicans endorse her. The situation is urgent but there is no need to despair or to reinvent the wheel. There are groups across the country engaging in protest and they show a clear path for a liberation movement.

This columnist joined with 200 activists in Chicago for the Right to Exist, Right to Resist conference organized by the International League of Peoples’ Struggles (ILPS USA). The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Police Oppression, Michigan Emergency Committee Against War and Injustice, Peoples Organization for Progress, Bayan USA, Chicago Teachers Union, US Palestinian Community Network, Committee to Stop FBI Repression and others met to strategize the fight against police violence, neoliberalism and imperialism.

If it is true that no person is an island then no struggle should be waged in isolation. The people of Ferguson, Missouri received support from Palestine during their rebellion against police occupation. The neoliberal onslaught that privatizes education and closes schools also deprives Flint, Michigan of clean water and its democratic rights. American imperialism threatens all life on this planet with its constant provocations against Russia and China which risk world war.

This presidential election repeated the sleight of hand which presents the Democrats as the party which defends us from the barbarians. Donald Trump is the foil used to fool millions of people into believing that the errand boys and girls of neoliberalism can also be the guarantors of human rights.

Hillary Clinton’s administration will be disastrous for black Americans in particular. The black “misleaders” are silenced yet again by a prospective Democratic presidency. They will not speak up against Hillary Clinton any more than they did against her husband or Barack Obama. They said nothing when Bill Clinton ended the 60-year long entitlement to government benefits. They said nothing when he used the war on drugs as an excuse to lock up thousands of black people with draconian prison sentences. They said nothing when Obama wouldn’t allow those people to request their freedom or when he declined to prosecute even one killer cop. They say nothing when American presidents wage wars of aggression all over the world. We can expect more going along to get along when “two for the price of one” becomes a reality.

Not only must activists do their utmost to fight back against the real life Lady MacBeth but they must call out those who falsely claim to be in their camp. The liars who said they would hold Obama’s feet to the fire are repeating their empty words and hoping no one pays attention. They must be exposed right now and again after election day because they will surely make good on their history of appeasement.

The Right to Exist, Right to Resist conference took place on the second anniversary of Laquan McDonald’s murder at the hands of Chicago police. McDonald was only 17 years of age, a child according to American law. His death, the existence of the Homan Square secret prison and other instances of torture and brutality resulted in demands for community control of the police.

Chicagoans are struggling to establish an elected Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC). Black community control of the police is a mobilizing issue all across the country. The demands began under Obama and must continue after Hillary Clinton takes office. She may bring the mothers of police murder victims on to the stage but she has said nothing about ending the death toll. That task is left for activists who know better than to expect any justice from her.

Millions of Americans struggle financially and are displaced by gentrification or fear the police or want to keep their public schools open. But in 2016 they have been led astray by one of the most cynical presidential campaigns of all time. Hillary Clinton preferred Donald Trump as her rival because she was likely to lose to any other Republican. She then used the man she wanted to run against to rally otherwise skeptical voters to her side. The ego maniacal Trump performed as expected and is driving all but dead-ender right wingers to Hillary’s side.

There must be no celebrating when her victory is announced. That is the moment when the fights must begin in earnest. All forms of mass action must be used to deprive her of support or claim of a mandate. The champion of the ruling classes cannot be allowed to claim the progressive mantle. That title belongs to the people who met in Chicago and marched in memory of Laquan McDonald. Frederick Douglass’ advice to “Agitate, agitate, agitate,” must still be followed. If not Hillary Clinton will privatize Social Security and find a rationale to start one last disastrous war. She will be stopped only if we assert our right to exist and right to resist.


Chinese Could Become Second Largest Nationality In Russia – OpEd

0
0

If current trends continue, with ever fewer immigrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus coming to Russia and with birthrates among Russia’s larger non-Russian nationalities remaining low, Zhanna Zayonchkovskaya says, the Chinese will be the second largest nationality in Russia by mid-century.

The senior scholar at the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute for Economic Predictions said that Russia has no choice but to rely on immigrant workers and that it has no other source except for China on which it is likely to be able to rely in the next several decades (newizv.ru/society/2016-10-26/248390-cherez-35-let-kitajcy-mogut-stat-vtorym-po-chislennosti-narodom-v-rossii.html and tass.ru/obschestvo/3735857).

Zayanchkovskaya added that Russia will not be able to do without massive immigration even if it raises the pension age. Doing that, she said, “will not level out the demographic waves or the problems of having a sufficient number of working age people. It will solve the problems of the pension fund, but the demographic situation will remain just as complex.”

There are three reasons why her remarks are likely to be especially disturbing to many Russians:

  • First, Russians have long been accustomed to believe that the second largest nationality in the Russian Federation are the Tatars, a group which Russians generally view as integrated or at least Russian speaking, qualities not found among immigrants from Central Asia, the Caucasus or China.
  • Second, Zayanchkovsky’s words also suggest that one or more of the Central Asian or Caucasian country migration flows into Russia is larger than the six million Tatars, a conclusion that if true means immigration into the Russian Federation is far larger than any Moscow official has ever acknowledged.
  • And third, her projection not only feeds into Russian fears about the overwhelming size of China’s population opposite Russia’s underpopulated Siberia and Far East but also may have consequences for the country’s ethnic mix far sooner than even the Moscow demographer suggests.

The reason for that final point is that there is evidence that an ever larger number of young Chinese men who can’t find spouses at home because of Beijing’s notorious one-child policy that led to gender-selection-driven abortions are coming to Russia to find brides (politkuhnya.info/novosti/kitai-zahvatit-rossiyu_-cherez-postel.html).

Many of these new mixed couples are returning to China, but at least some are remaining to live and work in Russia, a trend likely to transform the ethnic mix in Russia east of the Urals if not yet in the country as a whole.

Countering Chinese Inroads Into Micronesia – Analysis

0
0

By Dean Cheng*

As China’s economy has grown and China has assumed the role of foremost global trading power, Beijing has extended its influence to the South Pacific. The latest development has been reports of a new mega-resort on the island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).[1] The United States, which has generally played the dominant role in this area that straddles key sea lanes of communications to the western Pacific, needs to keep a close eye on Chinese efforts to make inroads there. Otherwise, Washington could find itself strategically outflanked.

Current State of Affairs in Micronesia and the Pacific

While Yap and Truk (also part of the FSM) were major Japanese naval bases in World War II, the South Pacific has generally not been a point of great power contention since 1945. At the end of World War II, the U.S. assumed responsibility for the “Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” In the 1980s, the Compact of Free Association (COFA) allowed the various Trust Territories to become independent states: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Under the COFA, the U.S. maintains certain preferential policies towards the island nations, while also assuming responsibility for their defense. Citizens of the islands may join the U.S. military without first establishing permanent residency or citizenship. The U.S., in turn, can maintain strategic access through the waters that are encompassed by the various island nations. Some one-third of global trade and almost 50 percent of energy commerce passes through waters controlled by these island states.[2]

While the U.S. has been responsible for the island states’ security, Washington has generally exerted limited economic effort in support of their development. (Much of U.S. aid in this case is administered via the Department of Interior, rather than the State Department.[3]) The largest source of aid to the states has been Australia ($7 billion between 2006 and 2013).

Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has established relations with the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Niue, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu, becoming a major donor and providing some $1 billion in aid.

According to the Lowy Institute in Australia, China has grown as a source of aid to various South Pacific nations.[4] Although China’s aid efforts remain behind Australia’s, they have eclipsed Japan’s.

Chinese Investments and the Extension of Chinese Power

The extension of Chinese power has occurred even as Beijing no longer competes with Taipei for diplomatic recognition from the various South Pacific states. For many years, Beijing and Taipei sought to buy diplomatic recognition by offering large aid and investment packages to the various nations. Under Republic of China (ROC) President Ma Ying-jeou, an informal truce was reached whereby both the PRC and ROC refrained from trying to alter the state of recognition. Six states in the region currently recognize Taiwan (ROC), while eight recognize Beijing (PRC).

Ironically, the shift away from “checkbook diplomacy” between Beijing and Taipei has probably left the region more open to Chinese investment, as the PRC pursues commercial opportunities in the region. Indeed, Chinese trade with Pacific island countries rose by 60 percent between 2014 and 2015, reaching $8.1 billion.[5]

As is the case with its investments in the Indian Ocean region, China’s economic investments in the South Pacific could eventually pose a security threat. After Australia, China is the largest source of aid to Samoa and Tonga. However, like the “string of pearls” of Chinese commercial investments and developments in the Indian Ocean, little evidence exists that Chinese business investments in the South Pacific are masks for a greater military presence.

In both instances, however, Chinese investments do serve the purpose of expanding China’s commercial, economic, and political footprint. This is arguably even more true in the South Pacific, where Chinese aid has transitioned from grants to concessional loans that will have to be paid back. Many of these island nations may find it difficult to meet the terms of these loans, given their limited economic resources. This, in turn, could open the door to other forms of Chinese presence, including military.

In some cases, China has clearly emphasized political and diplomatic considerations. When Fiji’s military staged a coup in 2006, many donor states, including Australia, reduced their commitments. The PRC, however, maintained its relations with the military government, and substantially expanded its aid donations. Chinese bilateral aid rose to $333 million by 2013, substantially outpacing Australian and Japanese aid.

Challenges Facing the U.S.

For the U.S., the presence of the PRC in the South Pacific does not pose immediate military threats; rather, it promises longer term influence for Beijing, which is likely to erode regional support for the U.S. This longer term erosion does have potential military implications. Not only do key sea lanes of communications (SLOCs) transit the waters encompassed by these island nations, but they also offer potential sites for various bases, as was the case in World War II.

Anchorages and airfields in these islands would offer alternative sites for Guam—which is already densely covered with various American military bases and facilities—making it a lucrative target for Chinese missiles and other stand-off weapons. Dispersal to additional sites would complicate Chinese targeting, by both proliferating the number of sites that might have to be attacked and broadening the number of sovereign states that it would be attacking.

By contrast, if Beijing established a political foothold in these islands, it could persuade these states not to extend access to the U.S., as well as arrange for Chinese access. These need not be military bases; the ability to build space surveillance facilities and communications nodes, for example, would make these islands potential reconnaissance and surveillance sites for eavesdropping on Guam and the U.S. missile test facilities at Kwajalein in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Recommendations for the U.S.

China’s efforts in the South Pacific are still at the nascent phase, so a relatively low-key American effort would serve to limit Chinese inroads. However, if the U.S. neglects the region, then Chinese investments are likely to generate disproportionate benefits. Therefore, the U.S. should implement the following policies:

  • Develop a regional strategy for the South Pacific. The first step is to recognize both the region’s importance and its needs. In this regard, the U.S. should coordinate its efforts with Australia and New Zealand, which are physically closer and have far more expertise in the region. In addition, the three nations share a common perspective and a common democratic tradition, and have the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty as a foundation for their efforts.
  • Preserve the Compact of Free Association. Part of the U.S. strategy for the South Pacific should be to preserve the COFA, which provides the legal basis for relations between the U.S. and several of the states in the region. Should the effort by the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) succeed, then there would be the diplomatic equivalent of “open season” on the various states, which would ultimately be detrimental to U.S. interests. The FSM effort would end the COFA by the close of 2018, rather than 2023, severely curtailing the time available for renegotiation. Washington should seek to reverse the FSM’s decision, while initiating talks now for revising the COFA. The U.S. should also consider moving the administration of COFA-related funds to the State Department, rather than the Department of Interior, so that it can be better integrated into a regional strategy.
  • Highlight and emphasize private investment and trade in the South Pacific. The aid distributed to many South Pacific states has not resulted in a substantial growth in regional economies. Such growth is unlikely to occur so long as the various states depend on aid. Given their location on the equator, the states have a number of potential avenues for economic growth, including tourism and fishing, as well as space tracking and potentially even space launch. (The commercial space launch provider Sea Launch operated its maritime launch ship from equatorial waters in the Pacific.) The U.S. may want to also consider including the various states in free trade agreements.
  • Monitor Chinese efforts in the region. Chinese efforts in the South Pacific, while mainly economic, undoubtedly have a political component and possibly a strategic one as well. Beijing is primarily oriented towards developing trade; however, as with much of East and South Asia, multiple political, diplomatic, and military considerations are in play. For these reasons, the U.S. needs to monitor China’s efforts in the South Pacific, as well as keep watch on its efforts in the Indian Ocean or Latin America.

About the author:
* Dean Cheng
is a Senior Research Fellow for Chinese Political and Security Affairs in the Asian Studies Center, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] Ben Bohane, “Chinese Company Seeks to Build ‘Mega-Resort’ on Remote Micronesian Island of Yap,” ABC Australia, May 2, 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/chinese-company-seeks-to-build-mega-resort-on-island-of-yap/7300588 (accessed September 20, 2016).

[2] Thomas Matelski, “America’s Micronesia Problem,” The Diplomat, February 19, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/americas-micronesia-problem/ (accessed September 20, 2016).

[3] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, “U.S. Relations with the Federated States of Micronesia,” Fact Sheet, February 25, 2016, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1839.htm (accessed October 25, 2016)

[4] “Australian Foreign Aid,” The Lowy Institute for International Policy, http://www.lowyinstitute.org/issues/australian-foreign-aid (accessed October 12, 2016).

[5] Feng Zheng, “Should Australia Worry About Chinese Expansion in the South Pacific?” The Strategist (Australia), July 11, 2016, http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-worry-chinese-expansion-south-pacific/ (accessed September 20, 2016).

South Africa’s First Green University Opened In Sri Lanka

0
0

NSBM Green University in Pitipana, Homagama, equipped with modern facilities was declared open by Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena on Wednesday, which the president marks the beginning of a new path in education in in the country.

Sirisena emphasized the importance of developing the student skills towards innovations as research and new innovative are essential for building the skilled human resource capital for a developed economy.

Sirisena said that the government was determined to open all doors required for building a knowledgeable society.

This is the first and only such university to be built not only in Sri Lanka, but also in the South Asian region. More than Rs. 10 billion has been spent for the project, which commenced in year 2012.

The NSBM Green University is comprised of modern auditoriums, computer laboratories, physical training centers, indoor stadiums, sports grounds, swimming pools, student based centers, a theatre equipped with all facilities and an open air theatre. Among the specialties of the university town concept is that it is also equipped with a super market, a housing complex dedicated for students and lecturers as well as a bank complex. The massive library which is also comprised of digital facilities will be a new experience for the library sector of the country.

The computer and engineering faculties will be open for students in the inaugural academic year. Plans are underway to introduce courses that are prepared according to the international syllabuses and have a higher demand.

Spain: Rajoy Calls For Dialogue In investiture Debate

0
0

At the investiture session, Spain’s acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy called for the parliamentary groups to search for a “shared and stable solution” to the main national challenges and offered a “reliable and predictable” government. Rajoy also expressed his interest in “seeking formulas to better accommodate the necessary inter-regional solidarity”, within respect for legality, the unity of Spain and national sovereignty.

In the opening speech of the investiture debate, the acting Prime Minister of the Government and candidate to the PM proposed by the King, Mariano Rajoy, requested the confidence of the Lower House because “Spain urgently needs a government”. Political uncertainty and institutional paralysis have become a major risk for the Spanish economy, he said.

Rajoy recalled that Spain remains the country to enjoy the fastest rate of growth among the leading developed economies and that, thanks to the approval in the autumn of 2015 of the General State Budget, it has been possible to maintain benefits, subsidies, investments and allowances.

Rajoy also pointed out that the caretaker government obtained a fiscal consolidation path from the European Commission that is more compatible with growth and, following a “frank understanding” with the regional governments and parliamentary groups, it has been agreed that the regional governments and local authorities can update their deficit targets and debt ceilings.

“During these months with a limited government, we have been able to observe that Spain is a mature democracy, capable of continuing its course, provided that the responsibilities of governing are attended to in advance, as has been the case here”, he pointed out. Mariano Rajoy also argued that we might go off course if “the cornerstone of our prosperity: confidence” fails, and hence it is necessary for Spain to have a government that clears away “every last shred of uncertainty”.
Avoid third round of elections

For Rajoy, it is “reasonable” for the political formation that has the greatest support from citizens to govern, above all when its lead over the second largest force is more than 2.5 million votes.

Rajoy also highlighted that, in the two months since the last vote of confidence, “certain very important changes have taken place that improve the political situation and open up the possibility of this debate ending differently to the previous one”.

Finally, Rajoy argued that his candidature responds to MPs finding themselves facing a dilemma of choosing between offering the Spanish people a government or asking them to return to the ballot box for the third time in less than a year. These elections would mean “discrediting” Spain’s image, in his opinion, which would be a “let-down” for our citizens and “seriously weaken” our economy.

Reliable and predictable government

The PM candidate underlined that since the general elections were held on 20 December, he has always advocated the need for a “stable government, capable of governing and of inspiring confidence”, one that is “reliable and predictable”. Taking into account the election results, he added, this government must also be founded on agreements that allow the implementation of the major reforms which the country needs.

In this regard, Mariano Rajoy described the commitments made with other political formations before and after the elections of 26 June as “steps in the right direction”. “I am aware of the importance of these agreements, it is my intention to maintain them and uphold them, have no doubts about that”, he declared.

Employment and the Welfare State

In the presentation of his government’s program, Rajoy highlighted that it contains two “basic” and “inseparable” goals: job creation and maintaining the pillars of the Welfare State.

Mariano Rajoy recalled that, at the end of 2011, 1,400 jobs were being shed on a daily basis, while at present more than 1,400 people are finding a job each day, but he claimed that “there remain too many people in Spain looking for a job opportunity”. Employment must also be our top priority because those who work pay the National Insurance quotas and taxes that maintain social expenditure, which makes up 63% of all public spending.

Main national goals

Rajoy advocated understanding on “the main State affairs” and to search for “a shared and stable solution” to the main challenges, the first of which is sustaining pensions, the guarantee of which “particularly depends” on achieving the goal of ensuring 20 million people in work by the year 2020. He announced that if he receives the vote of confidence of the Lower House, he will ask the parliamentary groups to call the Toledo Pact before the end of the year.

The candidate also proposed to give a new boost to social dialogue by immediately calling on the social stakeholders to “tackle new measures” that strengthen the creation of quality jobs and provide aid to the long-term unemployed, among other issues.

Rajoy added that the next legislature will also offer the opportunity of definitively achieving a “national education pact” with the aim of creating a stable model that guarantees equal opportunities and stresses efficacy and quality. Mariano Rajoy undertook to propose the creation of a parliamentary sub-committee in the first month of office “that allows a consensual agreement to be drawn up within six months” and that also includes “the consensus and collaboration of the education community”.

The statute on teaching staff, the reform of the governance system of universities, a program to combat the school drop-out rate and boosting vocational training are all features of this pact, he specified.

Another of the main challenges, he argued, is to agree on “a system of stable and sufficient regional financing”, that guarantees the quality of public services under conditions of equality for all citizens, since “education, healthcare, long-term care and other social services provided by the regional governments are, together with pensions, the foundations of our social policy”. In this regard, he announced that his government “will immediately tackle the preparatory work to call a Conference of Regional Presidents in the Upper House”.

Mariano Rajoy pointed out that “the commitment to cleaning up public life and the smooth functioning of our institutions” affects all political groups. He also stated that “there is no impunity in Spain for corruption”, and stressed that he has also been open to “promoting as many reforms as are necessary to boost the confidence of our citizens in politics and help make politics an activity that is increasingly transparent and exemplary”.

On this point, he referred to the raft of measures on the issue of the fight against corruption agreed with Ciudadanos in the month of August and offered the rest of the groups the opportunity to “enrich this agreement through their contributions”.

Dialogue and cooperation with Catalonia

Rajoy underlined that “the most serious challenge facing Spain” is the breakaway attempt that some are proposing in Catalonia. In this regard, he reiterated that “the only sovereign people are those made up of all the people of Spain” and that “no-one can deprive the Spanish people of their exclusive right to decide on their own future and on their own land”.

Moreover, he stressed that if he obtains the confidence of the Lower House, he will defend “national sovereignty and thereby defend the unity of Spain and the equality of the Spanish people, alongside respect for the law and fundamental rights”. “I will meet this obligation and I will do so by seeking, at all times, understanding between the groups that share the defence of the principles enshrined in the Constitution”, he added.

Rajoy underlined that he has always maintained and continues to maintain his interest in dialogue and cooperation with the Regional Government of Catalonia. “I have tried to offer a response to the real needs of the Catalan people because whatever affects them, affects me and is important to me”. He also stressed his interest in “looking for formulas that better provide for the necessary solidarity between regions”.
General Budget

Rajoy called for an agreement between the different parliamentary groups in order to complete the approval of the General State Budget for 2017. To that end, in the next few days he will submit the budget stability and public debt targets to both Houses of Parliament, as well as the ceiling on non-financial State spending.

In his opinion, budget stability “must remian a commitment respected by the government and not ignored by Parliament”

Shared responsibility and dialogue

Rajoy highlighted that any draft law, reform or project that is debated in Parliament “must be the result of a prior agreement, of negotiations, of give-and-take and understanding”. “We must take on the need for dialogue, not as a hurdle, but rather as an opportunity to consolidate broad and lasting reforms and leave to one side the slogans of the electoral battle to move towards designing solutions to the problems of our compatriots”, he argued.

Rajoy requested the collaboration of other formations to ensure a government that inspires confidence, is reliable and that can take decision at the speed demanded by the circumstances. “If the government is in a minority and by itself lacks the strength or stability that Spain needs, then it must look for collaboration to achieve this”.

This support, he specified, does no “mean forcing anyone’s hand, or that anyone has to renounce their own principles”, but rather that “the exceptional nature of the circumstances requires that all ideological confrontations be put to one side and that everybody pulls together”.

“I have taken on the idea that we must build a majority on each issue in order to govern. To that end, we need a government that is open to dialogue. That is what I can offer. I am prepared to negotiate whatever is necessary to take decisions. I will do whatever is in my hands so that we can work together for the good of the Spanish people”, he concluded.

UN Resolution To Outlaw Nuclear Weapons Hailed – Analysis

0
0

By J Nastranis

Nuclear disarmament campaigners have hailed the landmark resolution adopted by the United Nations on October 27 for launching negotiations in 2017 on a legally binding treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. The resolution heralds an end to two decades of paralysis in multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts.

In a historic move, at a meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, which deals with disarmament and international security, 123 member states of the UN voted in favour of the resolution, 38 voted against and 16 abstained.

The resolution will set up a UN conference beginning in March 2017, open to all member states, to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”. The negotiations will continue in June and July.

There are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, mostly in the arsenals of just two nations: the United States and Russia. Seven other nations possess nuclear weapons: Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Most of the nine nuclear-armed nations voted against the UN resolution. Many of their allies, including those in Europe that host nuclear weapons on their territory as part of a NATO arrangement, also failed to support the resolution.

But the nations of Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Pacific voted overwhelmingly in favour of the resolution, and are likely to be key players at the negotiating conference in New York in 2017.

The UN vote came just hours after the European Parliament adopted its own resolution on this subject – 415 in favour and 124 against, with 74 abstentions – inviting European Union member states to “participate constructively” in next year’s negotiations.

Echoing the views of a wide range if civil society and faith based organizations, Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing, said: “This is a truly historic moment for the entire world. For those of us who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is a very joyous occasion. We have been waiting so long for this day to come.”

“Nuclear weapons are absolutely abhorrent. All nations should participate in the negotiations next year to outlaw them. I hope to be there myself to remind delegates of the unspeakable suffering that nuclear weapons cause. It is all of our responsibility to make sure that such suffering never happens again.”

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a civil society coalition active in 100 countries, greeted the adoption of the resolution as a major step forward, marking a fundamental shift in the way that the world tackles this paramount threat.

“For seven decades, the UN has warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons, and people globally have campaigned for their abolition. Today the majority of states finally resolved to outlaw these weapons,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN.

ICAN said, despite arm-twisting by a number of nuclear-armed states, the resolution was adopted in a landslide. A total of 57 nations were co-sponsors, with Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa taking the lead in drafting the resolution.

Arms Control Association’s Executive Director Daryl Kimball said in a statement: “Today’s vote marks a new phase in the decades-long struggle to eliminate the threats posed by nuclear weapons. In order to attain a world free of nuclear weapons, it will be necessary, at some point, to establish a legally-binding norm to prohibit such weapons. As such, the pursuit of a treaty banning the development, production, possession and use of nuclear weapons is a key step along the way.”

Kimball added: “Although the world’s nuclear-armed states will likely boycott the negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban, this unprecedented new process could help to further delegitimize nuclear weapons and strengthen the legal and political norm against their use – a worthy goal.”

Kimball said, the strong support for negotiations on a ban treaty needs to be understood as a logical international response to the growing risks and catastrophic consequences of a conflict between nuclear-armed states, the accelerating global technological nuclear arms race, and underwhelming pace of progress by the world’s nine nuclear-armed states on nuclear disarmament in recent years.

He added: “The coming ban treaty negotiations are not a substitute for necessary, progressive steps on nuclear disarmament, but they do have the potential to strengthen the taboo against the further development and use of nuclear weapons.

“In the coming months and years, the non-nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-armed states – particularly the United States, Russia, China, India and Pakistan – can and should do more to overcome old obstacles and animosities to advance disarmament and nuclear risk reduction measures, which are essential if we are to avoid nuclear conflict.”

Ahead of the adoption of the resolution on October 24, 15 Nobel Peace Prize winners urged nations to support the negotiations and to bring them “to a timely and successful conclusion so that we can proceed rapidly toward the final elimination of this existential threat to humanity”.

The International Committee of the Red Cross also appealed to governments to support this process, stating on October 12 that the international community has a “unique opportunity” to achieve a ban on the “most destructive weapon ever invented”.

Analyzing the importance of the resolution, organizations campaigning for prohibition of nuclear weapons said nuclear weapons remain the only weapons of mass destruction not yet outlawed in a comprehensive and universal manner, despite their well-documented catastrophic humanitarian and environmental impacts.

Biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions are all explicitly prohibited under international law. But only partial prohibitions currently exist for nuclear weapons.

“A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons would strengthen the global norm against the use and possession of these weapons, closing major loopholes in the existing international legal regime and spurring long-overdue action on disarmament,” said Fihn.

She added: “Today’s vote demonstrates very clearly that a majority of the world’s nations consider the prohibition of nuclear weapons to be necessary, feasible and urgent. They view it as the most viable option for achieving real progress on disarmament.”

The October 27 resolution, known as L.41, acts upon the key recommendation of a UN working group on nuclear disarmament that met in Geneva in 2016 to assess the merits of various proposals for achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world.

It also follows three major intergovernmental conferences examining the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, held in Norway, Mexico and Austria in 2013 and 2014. These gatherings helped reframe the nuclear weapons debate to focus on the harm that such weapons inflict on people.

The conferences also enabled non-nuclear-armed nations to play a more assertive role in the disarmament arena. By the third and final conference, which took place in Vienna in December 2014, most governments had signalled their desire to outlaw nuclear weapons.

Following the Vienna conference, ICAN was joined by several civil society and faith based organizations in garnering support for a 127-nation diplomatic pledge, known as the humanitarian pledge, committing governments to cooperate in efforts “to stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons”.

The importance of the resolution also lies in the fact that for seven decades, UN members have pushed and prodded the world’s nuclear-armed states to address the threats posed by nuclear weapons.

The first resolution of the UN General Assembly First Committee on international security, which was adopted in 1946, established a commission to make proposals for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.”

Twenty years have passed since a multilateral nuclear disarmament instrument was last negotiated: the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which has yet to enter into legal force due to the opposition of a handful of nations, ICAN noted.

“This treaty won’t eliminate nuclear weapons overnight,” concluded Fihn. “But it will establish a powerful new international legal standard, stigmatizing nuclear weapons and compelling nations to take urgent action on disarmament.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images