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

Is Myanmar’s Political Transition A Model To Follow? – Analysis

0
0

By K. Yhome

Myanmar’s seemingly peaceful transition from military dictatorship to democracy has raised hopes of it becoming a model of political transition. An assessment of the transition that was set in motion in 2010 suggests that the country has made rapid progress and by all accounts it is likely to move forward incrementally, albeit with major challenges. If this transition is to be seen as a model, a fundamental question that needs to be asked is: How peaceful is the transition?

There is no consensus among analysts on when the process of change began in Myanmar. Some trace it back to 2003 when the then military government under Sr. Gen. Than Shwe unveiled a “seven-step roadmap to disciplined democracy” that outlined “drafting a new constitution through a national referendum” and “holding of free and fair elections” among other steps. Five years after the announcement of the roadmap, a new constitution was adopted in 2008 through a referendum.

Myanmar constitution

While the constitution is considered better than the previous constitutions of the country, it has been criticised for mandating huge powers to the military, including 25 percent reservation of seats in parliament and bestowing in the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces the power to pick ministers for three important ministries — defence, border and home affairs.

Under the new constitution, the first “free and fair” elections were held in November 2010 in which the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) won the controversial polls. Activists and world leaders welcomed the holding of the elections, but criticised the way in which it was conducted. Pro-democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (Suu Kyi) was released six days after the elections.

Proving its sceptics wrong, the USDP government under President Thein Sein soon embarked on wide-ranging reforms. But in the 2015 elections, the USDP lost to Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) that made a historic victory by obtaining about 60 per cent of the votes share and winning more than 70 percent of seats in both houses of parliament.

Any appraisal of the transition focusing on the two major political forces of the country would give a sense that both the military and the pro-democracy forces have accommodated each other for the larger good of the society. Thus, Suu Kyi’s NLD government has not been seeking criminal retribution for the long suppression and persecution under the military rule and on its part the previous Thein Sein administration released thousands of political prisoners in the early years of the reform era.

The political accommodation between the key political forces in Myanmar surely opened the door for democracy to grow. This is admirable if one looks at the political transitions in the Middle East. Even in neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, its political past continues to haunt present-day politics and in recent years Thailand has been embroiled in a series of political crises that have allowed the military to take centrestage at the cost of democracy.

If one shifts the focus to ethnic and religious minorities, the assumption that Myanmar’s democratisation is peaceful may need to be reassessed.

A peaceful transition?

In 2012, a couple of years after reforms were initiated by the USDP administration, the country witnessed one of the worst communal violence between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists that left hundreds dead and several thousand displaced. According to the Burmese authorities, the conflict claimed seventy eight people, injured eighty seven and displaced 140,000 people.

Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State, numbering about one million, are considered “illegal immigrants” without cultural roots in Myanmar and are seen a “threat to race and religion.” Communal mistrust between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims had been in existence for long. Rights groups criticised the government for not preventing the incidents in the first place and for failing to act assertively and impartially.

f one shifts the focus to ethnic and religious minorities, the assumption that Myanmar’s democratisation is peaceful may need to be reassessed.

A peaceful transition?

In 2012, a couple of years after reforms were initiated by the USDP administration, the country witnessed one of the worst communal violence between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists that left hundreds dead and several thousand displaced. According to the Burmese authorities, the conflict claimed seventy eight people, injured eighty seven and displaced 140,000 people.

Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State, numbering about one million, are considered “illegal immigrants” without cultural roots in Myanmar and are seen a “threat to race and religion.” Communal mistrust between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims had been in existence for long. Rights groups criticised the government for not preventing the incidents in the first place and for failing to act assertively and impartially.

If the reform-era is a period of continued discrimination and violence for the Rohingya Muslims, for many ethnic minorities the situation is no better. Under Thein Sein, government initiated an ethnic peace and reconciliation process to find a resolution to the decades-old ethnic conflicts in the country. Even as the government undertook the peace process with ethnic armed groups, military offensives continued unabated in many ethnic areas.

On 15 October, the Thein Sein government signed a nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA) with eight armed ethnic groups. However, more than half of the country’s rebel groups did not sign the NCA. Since then, the military has stepped up operations and offensives against those who stayed out of the ceasefire. In November 2015, a military offensive against ethnic rebel groups forced tens of thousands of civilians to flee their homes. Rights groups in Shan State accused the army of firing on civilians and raping women.

From the perspective of ethnic and religious minorities of the country, conflicts and violence have been part of the democratisation process. Humanitarian crisis as a result of military operations in ethnic areas and systematic persecutions in the Rakhine State against the Rohingya Muslims remained a major concern during this period.

Suu Kyi and the NLD administration

After coming to power, the NLD government set up a Central Committee on the Implementation of Peace, Stability and Development of the Rakhine State with the objectives of bringing “peace, stability and development to all people in Rakhine State.” The NLD government also established an advisory commission with former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as its Chair to provide recommendations on the complex challenges facing the Rakhine state. However, not many people are confident that these mechanisms will find a solution to the problem. A Yangon based senior journalist recently told this writer that these mechanisms are only to “manage” the crisis and are unlikely to find lasting solution to the problem.

The NLD government held the “21st Panglong Conference” in August this year and has made the ethnic peace process its priority. However, there are doubts if the civilian government will be able to control the military in dealing with ethnic rebel groups. While the NLD government and the military seem to have built a workable relationship in many areas, the stability of this relationship will be tested in dealing with the ethnic armed groups. A senior USDP functionary who had held important positions in the previous administration confided to this writer in Yangon late last month that tension is brewing between the NLD government and the military over conflicts in ethnic areas. The NLD government has sought restraint on the part of the military, but the military wants the NLD government to first moderate the ethnic armed rebels.

Seven months in office now, the NLD government faced new challenges last month following renewed conflicts in the Rakhine state. This was triggered by the killings of six policemen by armed groups suspected to have links with international terror groups. According to aid agencies, the violence has displaced another 15,000 Rohingya Muslims and 3000 Rakhine Buddhists. Also, renewed clashes between the military forces and the ethnic rebels have forced thousands to flee their homes in the states of Kachin, Shan and Karen.

For many ethnic and religious minorities, the transition has been a painful process so far. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein in June this year urged the NLD government to take concrete steps to put an end to the “systemic discrimination and ongoing human rights violations against minorities” while releasing a new report that highlighted the plight of the minorities in Myanmar, in particular the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State.

Myanmar’s transition is still an unfolding story. With more than four more years to go, Suu Kyi and her NLD government should not allow military offensives and violation of human rights against the minorities to overshadow the much praised transition. If Myanmar were to be a model of peaceful transition from military rule to democracy, Suu Kyi and her government should act now. History will judge Myanmar’s transition in its totality.


What UK Wants From India: More Trade But Less People – Analysis

0
0

UK Prime Minister Theresa May is in New Delhi from November 6-8 on her first bilateral visit outside the European Union (EU). The visit is seen as an opportunity for the two sides to strengthen business to business engagement in the areas of technology, finance, entrepreneurship, innovation, design, IPRs, higher education and defence & security. She will hold talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and review all aspects of India-UK Strategic Partnership. The Joint Economic and Trade Committee (JETCO) meeting will be held on the sidelines of the visit.

May is expected to use the trip to deliver on her ambitious vision for Britain after Brexit by introducing new and emerging enterprises, as well as more established players, to the key Indian market. While announcing the visit, she had said “We have the chance to forge a new global role for the UK – to look beyond our continent and towards the economic and diplomatic opportunities in the wider world.” The visit is expected to unveil Britain’s post-Brexit “new global role” and where India figures in that.

Among issues likely to be at the forefront of bilateral discussion is a potential India-UK Free Trade Agreement. On trade, May has declared that the UK will become the “most passionate, most consistent, and most convincing advocate for free trade,” and during the current visit she will be focusing on small and medium-sized businesses and her delegation will include representation from every region of the UK.

During the visit she, along with Modi, will inaugurate the India-UK Tech Summit in New Delhi, jointly hosted by the Confederation of Indian Indutsry (CII) and the Department of Science and Technology. The UK-India Tech Summit will bring together entrepreneurs, business leaders and policy makers from both sides for a three-day exchange to focus on matters such as technology, education, design, advanced manufacturing, and robotics among others which are seen as critical to India’s developing economy.

However, her trip to India comes on the back of two developments in the UK: the High Court ruling on Brexit and the announcement of the new visa rules for non-EU nationals. The former has led to a piquant situation where the May government has been shorn off the sovereign right to set into motion the process to withdraw from the EU ( by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty) prior to securing a parliamentary approval. The Conservative government has a small majority in the House of Commons. The government is set to appeal to the Supreme Court. May had earlier declared her intention to initiate Brexit by March 2017 and complete the process in two years.

Even prior to the High Court’s ruling some critics were claiming that May’s visit is less about India and more about the need to reassure voters back home on her government’s ability to manage the post-Brexit concerns, particularly those regarding the economy. UK cannot legally make any trade deals with India until it is officially out of the EU, which is by 2019 at the earliest; the High Court’s ruling may see the deadline slip even further. Though May has assured that there will be no change in the 2019 deadline, there are already talks about the possibility of a mid-term election on the issue.

The UK government has also announced changes to its visa policy for non-EU nationals, which will affect a large number of Indians, especially IT professionals. Under the new visa rules announced this week by the UK Home Office, anyone applying after November 24 under the Tier 2 intra-company transfer (ICT) category would be required to meet a higher salary threshold requirement of 30,000 pounds from the earlier 20,800 pounds.

The ICT route is largely used by Indian IT companies in UK and the country’s Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) had found earlier this year that Indian IT workers accounted for nearly 90 per cent of visas issued under this route. The motivation for the same appears to be the MAC’s belief that the current immigration policy is not incentivizing employers to train and skill the UK workforce and that there are no reciprocal arrangements that provide the UK staff the opportunity to gain skills, training and experience from working in India.

The tightening of rules on post-study stay in the UK discourages students to work in Britain after completing their studies there; consequently the number of those enrolled in British universities has halved from 40,000 to about 20,000 in the past five years. Nationals outside the EU, including Indians, will also be affected by new English language requirements when applying for settlement as a family member after two and a half years in the UK on a five-year route to residency settlement in the UK.

Critics ask why it is being made harder for Indian companies in the UK to bring in skilled workers from outside the country when India is the third-largest investor in Britain and Indian companies are its largest manufacturing employer. India is UK’s second largest international job creator – last year, India created 7,105 new jobs in Britain through 140 projects. India is likely to take up the visa issue with May during the visit.

Comparisons are also being made with visa rules for the Chinese, which are reportedly being granted more liberally and for longer durations. Since 2010, when May became home secretary, the number of Indian students studying at UK universities has declined while the number of Chinese students has risen from approx. 55,000 to 90,000 a year over the same period.

May’s India visit is being seen as its first major test of its ability to carry through its policy objectives of building stronger partnerships with non-EU countries while at the same time introducing the tougher immigration regime that the government’s electoral constituency has demanded through the Brexit referendum.

This article appeared at South Asia Monitor.

The Reality Of India-Pakistan: The Hyphen Can’t Go Anywhere – OpEd

0
0

By Minu Jain*

One man, seven, maybe eight minutes of screen time and a society in thrall. It is a measure of the fraught equation between two neighbouring nations, bound by history, culture and animus, that Pakistani actor Fawad Khan and his very brief role in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil should have become the touchstone of frenzied patriotism for self-proclaimed nationalists on the Indian side of the border.

That the actor’s fleeting presence in the film, which released this week and is reportedly well on its way to becoming a hit, evoked barely any response from audiences other than a stupefied “is that it?” is further evidence of the Kafkaesque edge to anything, even the most minor of issues, related to India and Pakistan.

Because the clamour for action against the film – along with the still-in-the-making Raees starring another Pakistani actor Mahira Khan – should be as minor an issue as it can get given the troubled trough that the two countries again find themselves in. With LoC strikes, civilians being killed, allegations of soldiers being mutilated and six Pakistan High Commission staffers, including at least four diplomats, being recalled, this is a treadmill of ceaseless tension from which there’s no getting off.

Incidentally, and unnoticed by those same self-proclaimed nationalists, another Pakistani actor, Imran Abbas, slipped scrutiny with a brief role in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil. Clearly, some more homework needed to be done!

So, Lahore became Lucknow, the roles of DJ Ali (Fawad Khan) and Dr Faisal Ali (Imran Abbas) were cut to size, references to some of the main characters being Pakistani were reportedly edited out and the film began with filmmaker Karan Johar putting in a disclaimer honouring the Indian soldier.

Finally, however, it’s not just about Johar’s entreaties, his promise that “going forward” he will not work with Pakistani artistes or Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis intervening to broker peace with the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) that had threatened to stall the screening, it’s about how tenuous the relationship actually is. And how quick we are to attack the cultural cement that keeps it together. Cultural contacts have been outsourced to right-wing groups on both sides with the state looking on mutely or, as in Fadnavis’s case, actively aiding and abetting them.

Quite like a crème brulee, with a hard crust that cracks open at the touch of a spoon to reveal the trembling custard underneath, peace between India-Pakistan is an uneasy, brittle affair, carefully built over decades of hostility and multiple wars and giving way far too easily to expose tensions and dissensions.

The attack on the Indian Army camp in Uri that killed 18 soldiers, followed by India’s surgical strikes, which triggered this latest crisis is but one chapter in the continual chafing that has eroded any and all attempts at stability and lasting peace between the nuclear armed neighbours.

The cultural core should be the quiet centre, one that should be maintained given the high stakes involved and the millions of people on either side. Instead, it is the softest target for bullies like the MNS and their like who conflate patriotism with heightened jingoism. Johar agreeing to pay Rs.5 crore to the Army Welfare Fund might be a noble gesture but nothing can hide the fact that he was coerced into making it to ensure a hassle-free release of his film – being shot last year just about when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi dropped in unannounced to Raiwind to greet his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif on his birthday.

That things could have gone from that bonhomie to this in the space of just a few months is indicative of the Pakistan-India equation itself. It’s always been a yin and yang, of bewildering contrasts and mood swings. The distinction between the state and the people, between terrorists and the people, between jingoistic right-wing groups and the people must be made.

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Ghulam Ali, Saadat Hasan Manto here and Lata Mangeshkar, Dilip Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan there… the cultural pulls of language, cinema and music are too many and too varied to be controlled. But this is one connect that is constantly being undermined. If the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) banned Indian television shows, Pakistani singers Atif Aslam and Shafqat Amanat Ali cancelled their concerts, Zindagi, a channel showing hugely popular Pakistani serials shifted track to Indian soaps only, Mumbai’s MAMI festival dropped the Pakistani film Jaago Hua Savera and the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) this year apparently has not a single entry from Pakistan.

Of course, this is an internet-abled world of Whatsapp, YouTube and Facebook. There is little to stop you from tuning into Coke Studio Pakistan, watching the latest Pakistani serial or a Ghulam Ali concert. The cultural browbeaters might do well to note this.

In all this, Pakistan and India quietly played a Champions Trophy hockey match in Malaysia last week, though Pakistani umpire Aleem Dar was withdrawn from ICC’s panel on security grounds ahead of the Test series with England in India.

Curiously, business ties have stayed untouched. India continues to give Pakistan ‘most favoured nation’ status though it has not got that in return (a change in the otherwise tit-for-tat relationship); and neither the 2001 Parliament attack nor the 26/11 terror strike hindered trade – India’s exports to Pakistan are valued at an impressive $2.17 billion.

And, of course, the Samjhauta Express continues as does the Lahore-Delhi bus as families split during Partition continue to reach out to each other, for weddings and funerals, festivals and pilgrimages.

In this fractured, difficult to assemble jigsaw, the Fawad Khans of the subcontinent must be encouraged not shunned. For peace, prosperity and understanding. That is the reality of India-Pakistan, forever connected in a hyphenated relationship, as neighbours through a shared past and present. The hyphen really can’t go anywhere.

*Minu Jain is a senior journalist and commentator. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

America’s Election Nightmare – OpEd

0
0

On Sunday,  the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing in the e-mail controversy, thus giving the Democratic candidate for US presidency a last-minute boost before the elections on Tuesday. With most polls putting Hillary ahead by a few points, and her solid backing by the mainstream media, the White House, and the Wall Street, her victory is all but guaranteed.

In other words, at this stage it takes a miracle for Donald Trump to pull off a stunning upset and earn the necessary 270 electoral college votes that would put him in the White House. He may win millions of votes, perhaps even equal to that of Clinton, but Trump is highly unlikely to muster the electoral votes given the peculiar distribution of popular and electoral votes in the United States.

But, no matter what the elections outcome, and in the Congressional race there is a likelihood of Republicans’ retaining their current domination of the House of Representatives, United States will emerge as a house divided, with serious political tensions between the grass root supporters of Trump and Clinton’s voting bloc, which is comparatively more diverse and includes millions of Hispanic, African-American, and other minorities.

In terms of race relations, Trump’s candidacy has opened a gaping wound that will not be easy to patch by whoever is in the Oval Office as of next January.

This is, of course assuming that there will be no major allegations of “rigged elections” and the repetition of the Al Gore controversy 16 years ago that required the intervention of US Supreme Court. Chances of multiple law suits to contest the results in various states cannot be ruled out, particularly if the outcome in some “swing states” turns out to a winner with a small margin. There are already allegations of duplicate voter registration in more than one state, rigged absentee balloting, etc.

Undoubtedly, US’ international image has suffered due to the vicious campaigning by the two leading candidates who exceeded their predecessors by a wide margin in negative campaigning with a considerable amount of mud slinging. The US today is less a model of deliberative democracy and more a “savage democracy” in which nothing is sacred and candidates, lubricated by hundreds of millions of dollars of private contributions, resort to any “dirty tactic” to gain over their competition. In retrospect, this election will be remembered by the extraordinary disclosures by WikiLeaks revealing numerous instances of political corruption, media favoritism, and the cover-ups and so on, much to the embarrassment of the Clinton campaign.

As the next US president, Clinton has a tough task ahead of herself in putting out the fire of incendiary campaigns and Trump’s populistic opposition, which will certainly linger in some fashion, e.g., by Trump’s initiative of a Trump TV. Clinton’s foreign policy agenda, on the other hand, faces serious challenges as well.

With respect to both Russia and the Syrian conflict, Clinton has been hawkish and is on record calling for new “leverages” over Russia in order to contain the Russian threat, as well as a “no-fly zone” in parts of Syria, which if she insists on will translate into new, and dangerous, tensions with Moscow. Clinton, who credits herself for dismembering Libya, is apt to try to turn Syria into another Libya, thus prompting greater US military intervention in the war-torn country. On the other hand, Clinton is likely to continue her past record of tolerating Israel’s land grab in the West Bank and ignoring the need for a two-state solution.

In terms of US-Iran relations, Clinton is expected to adopt a tougher position than Obama, perhaps setting forth new conditions for the US’s implementation of the nuclear agreement, pegged to Iran’s regional behavior. This is precisely what the pro-Israel pundits in the US are counseling Hillary to do, and some of her foreign policy advisers are already on the record favoring a tougher anti-Iran stance, much to the chagrin of Iran’s rulers and, simultaneously, cheers of Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional foe, that constantly accuses Iran of meddling in Yemen. The crisis in Yemen clearly calls for a revised US stance in favor of a cease-fire and political dialogue and, yet, Clinton might give Riyadh a free hand in continuing with its year and a half ruthless military campaign — that has resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe.

All in all, Hillary Clinton’s presidency, a major plus for the women’s cause, does not necessarily bode well for international peace and security in light of her past record and present policy positions, promising more tensions with Russia, Iran, and their Middle Eastern allies.

India Will Have To Fight Battle Against Pakistan-Backed Terror Alone – OpEd

0
0

By Gaurav Dixit*

Ideological obligations had enormous impact on the foreign policy of many countries during the Cold War era and maintain their impact even today in some countries. It has been true for many countries, including Pakistan, which was born out of an ideology of the two-nation theory.

Underneath the excessive depth of impact ideological politics have on Pakistan’s policy lay the ideological superstructure of Islam and tendency to support Islamic militants which are perennial determinant of its policies. The Pakistan state has all the incentive to back terrorist groups acting against India as it serves a broader range of objectives — including domestic and ideological as well as international.

Pakistan’s identity, its existence and its survival are linked to India. An ideological nation, born on the idea of Islam, it sees India as an existential threat. Pakistan, South Asia expert Aparna Pande says, needs to threaten India and feel threatened by it to maintain its national identity. India has to remain the enemy — and Kashmir must continue to be the casus belli to mobilise Pakistani nationalism.

Its national security imperative is to bleed India through a thousand cuts.

The compulsion to rake up the spectre of threat from India every time it is pushed to the wall on the issue of terrorism is nothing more than its ideological manifestation — however, the most disconcerting is the level of acceptance at the international community. No major country is willing to accept the fact that Pakistan has drowned South Asia in a kind of security quicksand, from where the world will be unable to revive if not checked in its current state.

Reflecting on the experience with the US during the 2002 stand-off between India and Pakistan, former Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh told Steve Coll, author of ‘Ghost Wars’: “Hereafter, I really will never ask the United States for anything as far as Pakistan is concerned.” And during a crisis, he added “obviously, now I won’t even send messages” through the United States to Pakistan.

Jaswant Singh’s experience is the experience of many Indian politicians and diplomats, who have tried to convince the US about the evil design of Pakistan — experience also exposes India’s frustration in convincing the US to deal with the Pakistan problem.

The international community neglected India’s demand to take strict action against Pakistan-backed terror groups, as it was a strategic partner in the war against communism first, and later the War on Terror. After years of the US turning a deaf ear to India’s demand, the tentacles of the Pakistani Jihad mindset have grown to a disproportionate level, and have spread to each and every corner of the world.

Foreign policy author Ahmed Rashid has written extensively on the flawed US policy towards Pakistan. One of the underlying themes of his book ‘Descent into Chaos’ is the lack of a coherent policy in the US towards Pakistan, which has led to catastrophic dependency on the most dangerous of allies.

Much water has flown under the bridge since 2002. India and the US share a better relationship now, and there has been consistent decline in the US-Pakistan relationship — and yet, US policy towards Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is confusing.

Meanwhile, rejecting India’s concern as a ploy for political gains, China has put a technical hold on India’s bid at the UN to ban terror outfit Jaish-e Mohammad’s chief and the mastermind of the Pathankot terror attack Masood Azhar. China’s generosity towards Pakistan points towards its economic and political interests in the region. Other is its strategical interest to counter India’s rise by shielding Pakistan’s misadventure in the region.

Asia expert Andrew Small in his book ‘The-China-Pakistan Axis-Asia’s New Geopolitics’ suggests that Pakistan plays a balancing role in China’s foreign policy. It not only keeps a large number of Indian troops away from the Chinese border, it also ensures that India is kept off balance and distracted, absorbing diplomatic, political and strategic energies that could otherwise be directed against China.

India’s diplomatic push to isolate Pakistan received a minor setback when China blocked India’s attempts to include the names of terror groups like JeM and LeT in the BRICS’ Goa Declaration. What hurt India most was Russia’s disinclination to support India’s stand against Pakistan. In fact, what the two powerful nations of Eurasia avoided was done by the BIMSTEC member-nations.

The problem is that despite the continued state sponsorship of terrorism, we lack the political will for conceptualising both the terrorist and its state sponsorship. The process by which different nations designate an individual/organisation terrorist and states sponsor of terrorism are charged with politics of interest and hence we have a flawed concept of terrorism.

Forget about the international community, with respect to relationships between Pakistan state and terrorist groups, the tendency is to separate the state from the non-state actor in India too. It is obvious that such differences can easily derail India’s fight against terrorism.

The world hardly needs any more evidence to suggest there is no difference between state and non-state actor.

Lack of singular definition of terrorism and its sponsors is hampering the global war on terrorism, and no other country’s prospect of development is disturbed as much as of India. Therefore, it is for India to take the battle against terrorism to its logical end, and not wait for the international powers to clean the mess.

*Gaurav Dixit is an independent analyst. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

Poor Nutrition During Pregnancy Can Cause Early Aging Of Baby’s Heart

0
0

The child of a slightly undernourished mother is more likely to suffer early aging of the heart, claims new research.

That’s according to a new study looking at the relationship between food intake of pregnant baboons and the health of their offspring’s heart. The study, published in The Journal of Physiology was carried out by a multidisciplinary team led by Dr. Geoffrey Clarke at the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio and Dr. Peter Nathanielsz at the University of Wyoming.

The researchers found that moderately reducing a mother’s food intake can impact the rate at which the offspring’s heart ages. Evidence is accumulating that restricted dietary intake can cause problems for the fetus which result in abnormal structure and function of developing organs, such as the heart. This makes it more likely that the offspring will suffer chronic illnesses later in life, such as heart disease and stroke. This study introduces the additional potential that a restricted diet during development accelerates the rate of aging.

The researchers chose to study the baboon heart as this model most closely mimics human development and aging. They used MRI scanning to study the hearts of male and female baboons whose mothers ate thirty percent less than the normally fed baboons. They found that the offspring of baboons, which ate less, showed signs of reduced heart function that comes with age. By five years of life, equivalent to twenty human years, the structure and function of the heart were already impaired.

The scientists describe the effects as being akin to what happens to a car that is built out of poorly manufactured parts and according to a poor design. The car won’t travel as far, as fast, or for as long as it’s correctly built peers. Similarly, poor maternal nutrition can make it more likely that the baby’s organs will show increased disease susceptibility and early aging.

The research suggests that this issue could affect humans in developed countries as well as developing. The degree of maternal dietary restriction undergone by the baboons can be seen in women of reproductive age in developed countries, especially if the family struggles to afford sufficient food. Food charity The Trussell Trust recently found that more than one in five parents in the UK faces food poverty and struggles to feed their children.

These changes in the heart could contribute to decreased quality of life, decreased exercise capability, and increased vulnerability to other diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. Understanding the effect of maternal nutritional stress on aging of the offspring will allow for interventions early in life, to prevent later-life heart problems.

Commenting on the research, Dr. Peter Nathanielsz, director of the Wyoming Pregnancy and Life Course Health Center at the University of Wyoming said, “Women’s health during pregnancy is of fundamental importance to the lifetime health of their babies. Society must pay attention to improving women’s nutrition before and during pregnancy to prevent these adverse outcomes in babies.”

Record Hot Year May Be New Normal By 2025

0
0

The hottest year on record globally in 2015 could be just another average year by 2025 if carbon emissions continue to rise at their current rate, according to new research published in the Bulletin of American Meteorological Society.

And no matter what action we take, human activities had already locked in a “new normal” for global average temperatures that would occur no later than 2040, according to lead author Dr Sophie Lewis, from the Australian National University (ANU) hub of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS).

However, while annual global average temperatures were locked in, it was still possible with immediate and strong action on carbon emissions to prevent record breaking seasons from becoming average – at least at regional levels.

“If we continue with business-as-usual emissions, extreme seasons will inevitably become the norm within decades and Australia will be the canary in the coal mine that will experience this change first,” said Dr Lewis.

“That means the record hot summer of 2013 in Australia – when we saw temperatures approaching 50°C in parts of Australia, bushfires striking the Blue Mountains in October, major impacts to our health and infrastructure and a summer that was so hot it became known as the “angry summer” – could be just another average summer season by 2035.

“But if we reduce emissions drastically to the lowest pathway recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (RCP2.8), then we will never enter a new normal state for extreme seasons at a regional level in the 21st Century .”

The idea of what the term “new normal” actually means was the cornerstone of this new research. It has often been used when talking about climate change but it had seldom been clearly defined. Dr Lewis and colleagues have now developed a scientific definition for the term.

“Based on a specific starting point, we determined a new normal occurred when at least half of the years following a record year were cooler and half warmer. Only then can a new normal state be declared,” she said.

After this process was used by the researchers to determine new normal conditions for global average temperatures, it was used again to examine record hot seasonal temperatures at a regional level.

Using the National Computational Infrastructure supercomputer at ANU to run climate models, the researchers explored when new normal states would appear under the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s four emissions pathways.

The research team then examined seasonal temperatures from December to February across Australia, Europe, Asia and North America.

The results revealed that while global average temperatures would inevitably enter a new normal under all emissions scenarios, this wasn’t the case at seasonal and regional levels.

“It gives us hope to know that if we act quickly to reduce greenhouse gases, seasonal extremes might never enter a new normal state in the 21st Century at regional levels for the Southern Hemisphere summer and Northern Hemisphere winter,” Dr Lewis said.

“But if If we don’t act quickly Australia’s “angry summer” of 2013 may soon be regarded as mild. Imagine for a moment, if a summer season like 2013 became average. The likely impacts of an extremely hot year in 2035 would beyond anything our society has experienced.”

Controlling The News Agencies: Draconian Or Necessary? – OpEd

0
0

The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has expressed “deep concern” over the one-day ban imposed on NDTV India by the interministerial committee set up by the Union information and broadcasting ministry. The NBA, which represents private television news and current affairs broadcasters in India, said the Hindi news channel had been “singled out when the rest of the media also did cover the (Pathankot) terror attack, and all such reports were available in the public domain”. The committee has ordered that the channel go off air for 24 hours from 00:01hrs on November 9 as it found its coverage of the January terrorist attack to be in violation of broadcasting norms.

The recent ban on NDTV, a private news channel in India over Pathankot terrorist attack coverage has received a lot of criticism from the journalistic fraternity. However when it comes to jeopardising National Security, the Government has the right to censor content shown on national television. The purpose of any censorship on the media should be pragmatic and not draconian in nature. Globally, the same set of parameters work for any censorship law, or body – Regulation of broadcast, print and all media services, creating acceptable code of conduct and ethics, ensuring complaint and feedback mechanism are in place, monitoring of digital spaces etc. Censorship does not mean suppressing all that is happening in the political arena, or the security arena or any arena for that matter. It simply means doing away with any kind of “Breaking News and Exclusives Phenomenon” which could create chaos and insecurity endangering National security. Whether it is an autocratic regime or a democratic establishment the currents and undercurrents in the media landscape are almost the same.

An independent press both strengthens and weakens the democratic mechanisms of good governance. Serious debates on Press censorship dominated the political corridors of India when the Indira Gandhi government, imposed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression during national emergency in 1975. The censorship was withdrawn in 1977. The levels of restrictions however remain a bone of contention between the State Run and the Private media establishments. Whether it is the OSA (1923), or the IT act (2007) the Indian establishment has mechanisms in place to prevent information attacks of any kind. In 2010, the Irish government was deliberating upon Internet filtering, reinforcing the graduated response mechanism in some ways to secure its digital space. In Erdogan’s Turkey several journalists have been jailed time and again for going against the establishment. In 2014 Russia had closed down a number of media outlets and restricted foreign investment in its press industry in the name of safeguarding national interests.

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks and internal disturbances across the world, limited censorship and not absolute free press is what is required today. There was a time when terrorist explosions were covered by the print media and the radio, but monitored by official sources for factual correctness. Today, in the era of TRPs and corporate benefits, credibility has taken a back seat. Imagine a Charar E Sharif episode or any of the wars fought by the India Military against its notorious neighbour being shown live on TV today. Uncontrolled media, with the backdrop of TRP race and corporatisation, has the potential of changing the word order, and creating anarchy which will give rise to more chaos both psychological and social. The Danish cartoon controversy falls in place here. Even Movies which usually mirror society have an uncanny knack of showing us such things; case in point being the Pierce Brosnan star ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ in the James Bond series which depicted this race toward anarchy.

The unprecedented rise of the fourth estate is central to any understanding of conflict and conflict reporting today. The press plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions about the Orwellian states, warring factions, generating fresh debates and discourses around existing conflicts and peace building measures. The paradigmatic shift to citizen journalism through social networks has also changed the dynamics of journalism today. Given the political and social ramifications of “free and fair reporting” versus “carefully scripted propaganda stories”, some reflections on changing role of the Fourth Estate would help us develop deeper insights into the functioning of the media landscape today.

The problem is that with the commercialisation of media houses and the corporate control on content, it becomes difficult to accept the credibility of news programs and debates. Some seem to be planted; others who report from ground zero tend to exaggerate sporadic events. Notwithstanding the fact that the media is profit driven, we still have ethical war correspondents who pass on factually correct information to the masses.

Lastly , says Noam Chomsky “ You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies.”


US Elections: Will Trump Emerge Victorious? – OpEd

0
0

Americans will vote on November 8 to decide who will be the country’s next president to lead the nation to a peaceful path without wars and bloodbaths. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have presented a crude irony to the poll that American people have been provided with a choice between not only the two most unpopular candidates, but also the two most reactionary candidates in modern history.

The 2016 presidential poll to elect the most suited person to guide the nation and world at large, is taking place as Americans, fed up with terror wars and erratic climatic disorders, have begun to think about a possible political systemic change rather than regime change and a new world order to move away from militarism, unilateralism, unipolarity and exploitation towards real democracy and collective work for freedom and happiness – unheard of in any capitalist nation.

At the outset, neither Trump nor Hillary is capable of making anew reformed and enlightened America and they would only continue with Bush-Obama policies of invasions and militarism. In that sense Americans are unlucky lot.

The final 2016 presidential debate took place on October 19, and expectations were not high either. Apparently, both leaders debated only those issues that seemed agreed upon in advance. That has been the practice of US politics cutting across the two-party system. The presidential candidates, therefore, have not been asked questions on some of the critical issues facing the nation that is fighting illegal wars abroad in Middle East on fake pretexts.

Hillary Clinton has long been the frontrunner in this contest, but there have been times where she has looked far from comfortable. The most recent examples came back-to-back in early September. First, she made headlines by labeling half of Donald Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorable”, allowing her rival to conclude it was evidence of her disdain for “hardworking people”. Mrs. Clinton had been suffering from pneumonia fueling further rumors about her health – rumors that some of her critics have been pushing for months. The news about her “sudden illness” helps Hillary in poll rating. Her poll numbers took a noticeable hit in the days that followed, but they appeared to recover towards the end of September.
Most US leaders think Hillary can bring more resources to the nation than Trump by terror wars. That is not the strength but weakness.

Presidential debates are mere gimmicks?

Debates in US presidential poll campaign are just a formality and what the candidates say would not have any relevance for the presidency as the presidents are controlled by capitalist-imperialist lobbyists, war monger intelligence-Pentagon, and mainly regulated for pro-Israel policies by the Jewish members of Neocons.

Particularly the final presidential debate, meant to make the presidential candidates to come to terms with the rising demands on USA, did not discuss anything about some of the most pressing concerns Americans as well as the world face, like climate change, terror wars as permanent war feature, poverty and corruption and campaign finance.

The final debate moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, faced questions on debt and entitlements, immigration, the economy, the Supreme Court, foreign hot spots and the candidates’ genuineness and fitness to be president. These topics have already been widely covered in previous debates. According to an analysis of the first two presidential debates and the vice presidential debate, there has been a “significant emphasis on Russia, terrorism and taxes.” So far, those topics have received a whopping 409 mentions combined, with 77 of those dedicated to Trump’s own taxes.

The presidential candidates, if they sincere about future of Americans and humanity, should have concentrated on the following issues:

1. How to end terror wars, essentially on Islam?
2. How to recast a normal foreign policy for promoting world peace and genuine democracy?
3. How to put an end to media Islamophobia trends?
4. How to solve the dangerous climate change?
5. How to attack poverty and save the poor and under privileged? Much more, of course!

Climate change, poverty and campaign finance reform are just three issues the mainstream media has refused to raise questions about in the debates. Also, both the candidates and media are silent on issues like China, gun control, education, student debt, voting rights, drugs, abortion, and reproductive health, NSA/privacy/surveillance, Native Americans.

Global warming directly threatens economy and capitalism. According to a World Economic Forum survey of global experts in 2016 global warming tops the list of potential threats to the global economy. But this issue has been mentioned three times in the debates by Hillary Clinton, in passing. According to Pew Research the people are concerned about climate change, with 73 percent of all registered US voters saying they care either “a great deal” or “some” about the issue. Fifty-two percent of registered voters say the environment is “very important” to their voting decision in 2016.

Donald Trump is a climate denier and has said on his medium of choice that global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive. Trump has pledged to undo the Obama’s climate initiatives, including the Paris climate agreement and the Clean Power Plan, which would require power plants to clean up their emissions. Trump has also vowed to expand fossil-fuel exploration. Clinton just has a detailed plan for combating climate change, with the promise of “taking on the threat of climate change and making America the world’s clean energy superpower.” But ways and means are not discussed by her. While she has gained a number of endorsements from leading climate groups, her acceptance of natural gas as a so-called bridge fuel disturbs some, including 350.org, which says it’s “just a fast lane to more climate destruction.”

Speaking for the first time in his entire campaign with some seriousness, Trump touched a number of ultra-right talking points calling for the appointment of Supreme Court justices, for a wall along the US-Mexico border and to deport millions of undocumented workers, and pointing out, correctly, that President Obama has deported many millions already. Trump appealed to the economic grievances of working people, declaring that expelling immigrant workers, renegotiating trade agreements to bar foreign imports and slashing taxes on the wealthy and the corporations would generate an unprecedented economic boom, with annual GDP growth of six or seven percent. He declared that “millions of people are registered to vote that should not be allowed to vote,” then added that Clinton herself “should never have been allowed to run for president because of what she did with emails and so many other things.”

For the first time in any of the debates, the question of a US-Russian conflict in Syria was broached when Wallace asked Clinton directly about her support for a no-fly zone over Aleppo and other contested Syrian cities. A no-fly zone meant war with Syria and Russia, and if a Russian plane violates the no-fly zone, does President Clinton shoot it down? Clinton simply ducked the question, claiming that the no-fly zone, an act of war against Syria and its allies, Russia and Iran, would be the subject of “negotiation.”

Treacherous politics of poverty

It is not just the third world ,but even the developed nations have poverty, both known and covert. Despite over 45 million Americans currently living in poverty, not a single question has been asked about that either, and the issue has barely been mentioned. In fact, Democrats had no questions on poverty in any of their primary debates. That is because Democrats have taken, along with terror wars, the burden of poverty as well prompted by Republicans as well as their own. Child poverty rates in the United States, at 21.6 percent, are nearly double the OECD average of 12.4 percent. Before running for president, Bernie Sanders, who still claims to be a socialist, called poverty one of the “great moral and economic issues” that Americans face. The Census revealed that the number of Americans living in poverty had increased to over 46 million, the highest number ever. “Poverty in America today leads not only to anxiety, unhappiness, discomfort and a lack of material goods. It leads to death,” Sanders said.

The latest hacked Clinton emails show that in the 2016 primary Clinton’s aides were wary of ideas that could alienate centrist and conservative voters who are skeptical of welfare. Despite the fact that nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will someday themselves experience the official poverty line.

People would love to see the presidential candidates discuss their plans for combating poverty. Trump talks about poverty, about creating more jobs, which he aims to achieve by cutting taxes and government regulations and renegotiating trade deals to bring more jobs back to America. He’s also called for a new tax plan to help defray child care costs for working parents. Clinton has detailed plans to fight poverty on her website, including: expanding the tax credit for children; providing universal preschool for 4-year-olds; subsidizing child care; increasing the minimum wage to $12 an hour; and investing tens of billions of dollars in poor communities, including for housing and job training. To pay for her proposals, she would increase taxes on the wealthy, but she won’t do it.

Campaign Finance and fundraising

USA promotes lobbyists to make money from foreign nations and companies.’ This is the root cause of rampant corruption and nepotism in America. Since the common folk and the poor certainly don’t make large campaign contributions, they don’t have powerful lobbyists in Congress and Senate representing their interests. Everything is planned and executed in USA for the rich and those who “generously” give money to the candidates during the immoral fund raising. Eighty-four percent of Americans think money has too much influence in their political campaigns. But moderators have asked not one question about it, and there’s only been one mention so far in the debates.

Therefore, USA clearly cannot overcome the phenomenon of rampant corruption in all domains.Clinton and Trump have raised a jaw-dropping $911 million and $423 million respectively, including money from super PACs. In state and local races across the country, donors have poured more than $1 billion so far this year
Trump said he supports campaign finance reform that would keep registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in US elections. The one campaign finance mention in the debates Hillary Clinton said, perhaps without any serious intent that she wants to “see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics.”

The hacked emails prove coordination between Clinton Campaign and Super PACs” shows consistent, repeated efforts by the Clinton campaign to collaborate with Super PACs on strategy, research, attacks on political adversaries and fundraising.” That’s against the rules of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center announced earlier this month that it had filed two sets of complaints with the Federal Election Commission, charging that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns have improperly coordinated with super PACs.

Zionist USA: USA, the cause of Zionist crimes in Palestine

Terror wars launched by the foolishly arrogant USA in energy rich Muslim nations have further narrowed down the space for genuine cooperation, peace efforts and promotion of freedoms in US policies. The continued support for Israeli fanaticism and colonialist crimes in Palestine has dented the prestige of USA more than anything else. In fact it is the US policy for Israel and the latter’s ideas about a new world order where Israel’s threats to Arab world, its crimes and genocides in Palestine are respected that has complicated and weakened US efforts for secured world.

Like the Israeli establishment, US establishment also generally decides who should be the next president and what should be his agenda, and they work for that end, it is still seen busy with a Hillary win and Trump defeat. Clinton has become the consensus candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus, and, increasingly, of the Republican as well as the Democratic wing of the political establishment. It is significant that Trump never identified himself as a Republican or made any reference to the Republican Party during the debate, while Clinton repeatedly invoked the names of Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and contrasted them to Trump. Hillary is ready to claim to be the next president in January 2017.

Israel controls and attacks not just the Gaza Strip but even areas in West bank. The UN human rights rapporteur has accused Israel of denying Palestine’s right to development thus causing rampant poverty, “epic” unemployment and economic stagnation, while illegal settlement activity is leaving hundreds of Palestinians homeless this year alone. Over 1,100 people have been left homeless so far this year in Area C of the West Bank, as Israel demolished some 780 Palestinian homes. Area C is fully controlled by Israel and comprises of some 60 percent of the total territory in the West Bank. It is the area where the Jewish settlements – illegal under international law – are located.

So far this year, Israel has destroyed 780 homes there, compared to 453 demolitions that were conducted in 2015. Last year’s demolitions left some 580 Palestinians homeless, while this year 1,129 people were left without a roof over their heads. In addition, the publication noted that further 125 Palestinian homes were also demolished in East Jerusalem since the start of the year. Last year’s figures stood at 78 home demolitions. As a result, 164 Palestinians were left homeless this year in East Jerusalem. Overall, more half a million Israelis live in over 230 illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority considers West Bank to be a part of a future independent Palestinians state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Illegal occupation remains one of the main stumbling blocks on the way to achieve a two-state solution with Israel.

A day earlier, as part of the Israeli government’s ‘carrot and stick’ policy, the country’s security cabinet reportedly approved a series of Palestinian building plans in Area C. The Deepening of the occupation, the constriction of basic human rights and the utter absence of a political horizon leading to self-determination for the Palestinians have reinforced an atmosphere of despair and hopelessness “Poverty is rising. Unemployment is rising to epic levels. Food insecurity is becoming more acute. The Palestinian economy is becoming more stifled and less viable under the occupation,” Michael Link, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said delivering his report to the UN General Assembly in New York.

US/NATO unilateralism vs. Multilateralism

Unilateralism, represented by USA is challenged by multilateralism of Russia, backed by China and a few others has landed Americans in perpetual troubles. Americans are unhappy. The 2016 presidential election has left a strong impression of the USA as a fractured, gloomy nation. According to the latest American Values Survey, nearly two-thirds of Americans say neither major party represents them, while 74 percent are pessimistic about the country’s direction – up from 57 percent just four years ago. Nearly three-fourths say the country is either stagnating or falling behind, according to a Time magazine poll. The American-led Western order of governance and economics is on the wane. Even among young adults under 30, more than half are fearful for the future. This mood of pessimism requires that the winners of the election listen to the views of people who think differently from them.

Within Western so-called democracies – from Britain to the US itself – people are disillusioned with the their systems that promotes only capitalism and colonialism, care only for the rich and corporate interests, resulting in reactionary populist movements are pushing back against the rotten rules and systems that have stayed for decades. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is feeling betrayal by USA. In “autocratic” countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, leaders feeling badgered by the USA over human rights are turning to China and Russia, too. When the Philippines’ tough-guy President Rodrigo Duterte announced in Beijing last week that “America has lost” and that he was “separating” from the USA to align with a rising China, it could only send a clear message to the world about the current weak status of superpower. Yet, US leaders cannot leave out Israel – the major cause of its decline.

Americans are in a period of struggle between democratic governance and a more authoritarian vision of rule both nationally and internationally. People feel that their culture and identity are under threat; they sense that governing systems are no longer working, and they want some strong response to that. As America has become a less-dominant presence in the world, the countries that have risen to play a larger role are broadly “democratic” and adhering to free-market norms and multilateralism – from Turkey to Japan to India, South Africa, and Australia. Moreover, China and Russia have been seeking to expand their influence for years as America has been forced to withdraw somewhat from its leading role. But the “authoritarian market state” has not drawn many converts.

The world order launched following the end of a disastrous World War Two, making USA the richest nation on earth and the current US picture, can be seen as the birth pangs of a new world order – less Western-centric and still retaining the old order’s foundation of democracy and liberal economics. Organized movements like the tea party or Black Lives Matter don’t fade away.

Post WW-II world has been fully controlled and regulated by the USA. Now the Western-built system of international order is no longer serving the world’s needs. The USA and Europe are less willing to intervene when other parts of the world are unable to respond effectively to conflicts and other global challenges. That has meant a decline in Western influence. Indeed, 500 years of the West ordering the world is at an end, and that sounds terrible. And, broadly speaking, the emerging multipolar global order is largely based on the principles that the West espoused. And, a decline of dependence on the part of independent nations!

Americans have seen these alternative means of civic engagement show up on the margins of politics. New communities have formed, often on the internet, around local food, alternative energy, home-schooling, or work sharing. Americans don’t simply stew in political resentment. They create new paths, outside official democracy, to find people of similar interests and values. The Digital Age has accelerated this trend to redefine what is public. It can also mean understanding how Americans are turning their disappointment with politics into new forms of civic activity. If they are not finding the social goods they seek through elections, they must be looking for them elsewhere.

These alternative civic bonds do not merely fill the gaps of government services. They can create whole new communities, cutting across the traditional political divisions. Yes, Americans “must always believe that they can write their own destiny.” These are based on hope, not gloom. The 2016 election winners does indeed have work to do in listening to the currents of American society that are moving ahead on their own. A good leader tries to run ahead of the people in the direction they are going. This shift is happening as the global systems established by the West face unusual headwinds.

Frustrated populations are increasingly tempted by strong alternatives to the status quo, the diplomat says. Internationally, a breakdown of the long-reigning Western order is prompting the Russians and Chinese to promote multilateralism- a new version of international relations on their side. But China and Russia have made little headway. Already at the time of the international financial crisis, the Chinese were putting out that their system was better than the American democratic system. The financial crisis saw the emergence of the multipolar G20 where once the all-Western G7 had reigned.

Observation

In the name of democracy and regime change, USA has promoted only authoritarians. And it’s not just countries that are more or less new to the club of Western principles. For instance, more than a quarter of French citizens are prepared to accept a more authoritarian state, according to a recent survey. In the USA, critics see a war mongering and arrogant Clinton, the rise of Donald Trump – who has spoken openly of reining in press freedoms, intimidated judges, and taken a generally bellicose tone – as a turn toward a strongman-like figure.

World wars and the so-called cold war with Soviet Russia made USA what it is today, the super power that can bully any nation that does not obey its instructions, follows its footsteps. Perhaps for this reason USA does not want to stop criticizing and attacking Russia. As the effective boss of UN and UNSC, NATO, G-7, World Bank and IMF, etc, strangest and loudest campaigner of so-called democracy, USA has been able to retain its control over the world and press its global prowess into action to weaken any nation.

Far more rapidly than most people are aware, the quarter-century of war waged by the US since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the fifteen years of the “war on terror,” are metastasizing into a direct confrontation with the larger geopolitical rivals of the United States. This immense war danger has been virtually excluded from the presidential election campaign and all but ignored by what presents itself as the political “left” in the United States. After a quarter-century of unending war, including eight years under Obama–the first president to serve two full terms with the country continuously at war–there is no functioning antiwar movement.

The US poll looks like an establishment conspiracy against Trump and hence questions on Trump’s unwanted sexual advances scandal. To date, the controversies have appeared to hurt Trump more than Clinton, who has gradually expanded her lead over the GOP nominee in recent polls. Several women, supporting Hillary, have since accused him of making unwanted sexual advances in separate incidents from the early 1980s to 2007. Trump has denied the allegations, calling them “totally and absolutely false.” Why has Hillary and her party have resorted to cheap politics? The usual battle for the White House by two-party system is nearing the end point. World is damn sure that irrespective of who win the battle would continue the Bushdom agenda of permanent war on Islam by using many Muslim rulers like Syrian leader Assad.

The usual battle for the White House by two-party system is nearing the end point. World is damn sure that irrespective of who win the battle would continue the Bushdom agenda of permanent war on Islam by using many Muslim rulers like Syrian leader Assad.

WikiLeaks has embarrassed the Clinton campaign by releasing thousands of hacked emails purportedly from her campaign chairman’s account. FBI files alleging a State Department official sought a “quid pro quo” to alter the classification on a Clinton server email added to the campaign’s – and Obama government’s – woes.
Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week. Clinton, the Democratic former secretary of state, led Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, according to the Oct. 14-20 poll, a 4-point lead, with the Nov. 8 election fast approaching. That compared with 44 percent for Clinton and 37 percent for Trump in the Oct. 7-13 poll released last week. But today the trend has again changed favoring Trump by one percent. If the upward swings and shifts continue Trump would land in White House to control the world.

America and the West must withdraw from being world policemen and a new breed of global strongmen are trying to take over leadership, Russia and China topping the list. Many countries now rising to prominence claim they do share America’s core values. American ally seemingly eschew the long-dominant Western order of democratic principles and free-market economics to embrace a more authoritarian and state-driven vision of economic and political rule.

Americans can no longer leave the electoral process to the two parties or the media conglomerates with who they’re in cahoots. The stakes are too high. But Americans do not have more than just two candidate choices and have to abide by the conventions. The American political mood is dark and pessimistic just now. This will force those elected in November to listen even more to those they oppose. What they find may surprise them.
In the name of democracy and regime change, USA has promoted only authoritarians. And it’s not just countries that are more or less new to the club of Western principles. For instance, more than a quarter of French citizens are prepared to accept a more authoritarian state, according to a recent survey. In the USA, critics see a war mongering and arrogant Clinton, the rise of Donald Trump – who has spoken openly of reining in press freedoms, intimidated judges, and taken a generally bellicose tone – as a turn toward a strongman-like figure.

After 70 years of a world order that has been built by the West on the architecture of Western values, it is certainly striking how much liberalism is on the retreat. Now the new president could, if he wants and has the will, can play a lead role in reforming a new world order of multilateralism and genuine justice.
The routine US presidential poll campaign formality is over. The third and final debate is finished! The candidates go their separate ways without a handshake. Clinton walks off stage first. Of course, no love lost there, that’s for sure. What would be the fate of Americans?

In order to overcome the high level expectations and manipulations, Trump and his advisers should be prudent enough to understand the under current in the campaigns trying to wean away the votes from Trump camp.
The high light of the final debate is that it has witnessed a reformed Trump performing. USA would wait for some more years to have their first ever woman president who is honest and sincere, unlike hawkish warmongering Hillary who over exposed as a terror inspired US leader. Hillary is surely unfit to lead Americans and world.

A Lot Of Sticks For UN Human Rights Council – Analysis

0
0

By J Nastranis

An array of nations have criticised the Human Rights Council for overstepping its mandate among others by delving into matters that fell within the domestic jurisdiction of States, politicising human rights and unfairly targeting some countries.

As the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) discussed the Council’s annual report on November 4, several other countries – including the U.S. and those from Europe – however spotlighted the link between ensuring fundamental freedoms and achieving sustainable development.

The universal periodic review, the critics agreed, was a very useful tool in upholding and allowing Governments concerned and members of the international community to engage with each other on equal footing in order to improve human rights in all countries. However, they warned, the review process should not be the “end-all and be-all” of the human rights protection process.

Briefing Member States on the Council’s latest report, its president Choi Kyonglim from the Republic of Korea said it was exploring new opportunities to advance human rights based on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In its many debates, the Council had focused on the relationship between climate change and the rights of the child, the contribution of civil society in preventing abuses, women’s equal rights and business and human rights, he said.

Given its many resolutions on a wide range of issues, the Council had demonstrated its ability to overcome political differences, Choi Kyonglim added. Despite its tireless efforts and those of the wider United Nations, however, human rights abuses were still rampant, humanitarian conditions were worsening and armed conflicts continued to rage.

“But we cannot lose our hope and optimism,” he emphasized. “These two words are our guiding lights, with which we illuminate the darkest corners of the world.”

Over the course of 2016, he noted, the Council had established an Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and a Special Rapporteur on the right to development.

Challenges persisted in regards to the universality of its work and small countries had been encouraged to strengthen national processes to enable more engagement. The active participation of civil society was also central to the work of the Council, he said.

The Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson from Fiji said the Council had time and again indeed “shone a light” on human rights violations, helping to establish new international norms and provide accountability. It now had a central role in promoting the 2030 Agenda and ensuring that its implementation was pursued in a manner consistent with international human rights standards.

With much more work remaining to be done in the decade ahead, the international community must stand firmly in its support of the Council’s work, however difficult that might be, he stressed.

In the ensuing discussion, many delegates expressed concern in particular over the adoption of resolution 32/2, titled “Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity”.

Russian’s representative said international cooperation was increasingly important and the United Nations must ensure ongoing dialogue between States. While the Council played a particularly crucial role, its agenda had become a tool for airing political grievances and demonizing certain States. Citing certain dubious actions that had diluted the work of intergovernmental bodies, he said the Council itself was becoming a platform to test-run politically loaded matters.

UN bodies with human rights mandates should not encroach on matters of international security, development, counter-terrorism and human trafficking. They must also have limits and avoid duplication. The Council’s agenda went beyond its mandate and jurisdiction, he said, expressing alarm at “relentless efforts” to bring up other matters, including issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Overstepping its mandate was becoming a typical characteristic of the Council. While welcoming the objectivity of the universal periodic review process, he raised concerns about other worrisome trends that could discredit the work of the United Nations in protecting and promoting human rights.

Speaking on behalf of the African Group, Botswana’s Permanent Representative to the UN in New York, Charles Thembani Ntwaagae emphasized the importance of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the Council’s work.

Expressing support for the Council’s agenda item on technical cooperation and capacity building on human rights issues, he stressed that related advisory services should only be issued upon the request of the State concerned, based on its priorities and national ownership and with full respect for sovereignty and political independence.

Deploring all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, hate speech and violence, he expressed deep concern over attempts to introduce and impose new notions and concepts that were not internationally agreed upon, particularly in areas where there was no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.

The African Group was even more disturbed at attempts to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their sexual interests and behaviours, while ignoring that other types of intolerance and discrimination regrettably still existed.

Spotlighting the Council’s adoption of resolution 32/2 as such an attempt, he expressed concern that such efforts were being pursued to the detriment of issues of paramount importance, such as the right to development.

Alarmed that the Council was delving into matters that fell within the domestic jurisdiction of States, the African Group believed that notions of sexual orientation and gender identity should not be linked to existing international human rights instruments.

Recalling that the Group had tabled a resolution to defer the consideration of resolution 32/2 in order to engage in further discussions on the matter, he reiterated a call for the suspension of the appointed Independent Expert’s activities, pending the determination of clarity on the issue.

However, United States Ambassador Sarah Mendelson emphasized that those issues related to resolution 32/2 clearly belonged on the Council’s agenda. No one should face violence or discrimination because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, she said.

Delegations raised other concerns, with some saying they had been unfairly targeted. Israel’s representative Nelly Shilo said special items, politicized debates, preposterous reports and unfounded accusations had characterized the attitude of the Council towards her country.

“Instead of trampling in the political swamp,” she said, “it is crucial that the Human Rights Council finally focus on promoting human rights.” While Israel had faced many security challenges, it remained committed to upholding human rights.

Raising a similar concern, Iran’s Mohammad Reza Ghaebi said it was regrettable that certain countries had been persistent in politicizing the issue of human rights. He urged the Council to firmly maintain its fairness and mutual respect for different religions, values and cultures while refraining from imposing a single lifestyle on others. It was more important to focus on issues such as confronting violent extremism and raising awareness towards the imminent threat of terrorism, he said.

India’s Mahesh Kumar said that intrusive monitoring and finger-pointing while dealing with specific human rights situations was inimical to the Council’s objectives. The Council must continue to strengthen its adherence to principles of universality, transparency, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and historical, cultural and religious backgrounds.

The universal periodic review mechanism provided a forum for non-politicized, non-selective and non-confrontational discussions. The mechanism should not be adjusted, as any such attempt could dilute the universal support it currently enjoyed. Related issues could not be approached in isolation, nor could addressing them ignore the complex relationship between human rights, development, democracy and international cooperation, he said.

The representative of Maldives said that as a small island developing State at the forefront of climate consequences, it had long advocated that the climate change issue and its impact on populations be viewed through a human rights lens. Despite its situation, the island state had maintained a strong presence at the Council. “We are proud to have given a voice to the smallest members of the international community,” Maldives’ representative Aisha Nqeem said.

Underlining the need for the Council to avoid a repeat of the negative practices that had discredited its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, Deputy Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations, Ambassador Ana Silvia Rodríguez Abascal, expressed regret over the Council’s increasing trend to impose double standards in its consideration of human rights.

“The Council must be rescued from a situation in which selectivity and political manipulation will prevail,” she stressed, noting that the universal periodic review, which was the sole comprehensive mechanism for the consideration of human rights, had distinguished itself from the Human Rights Commission through its respect for the principles of objectivity and non-selectivity.

Emphasising the need for those principles to also be observed by the Council’s special procedures and its treaty bodies, she said that, as long as the current unfair and exclusive international economic and political order continued, the Council must take a stand in favour of equity and democracy. In particular, it must reject such universal and coercive measures such as those Cuba had faced for more than 50 years.

A Blow To South Africa’s Soft Power: Leaving The ICC – Analysis

0
0

By Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Aditi Lalbahadur and Neuma Grobbelaar*

South Africans woke up on the morning of 21 October 2016 to the shocking announcement that the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Maite Nkoana Mashabane, had submitted an instrument of withdrawal from the Rome Statute to the UN Secretary General in New York, two days before. This notification signals South Africa’s intention to withdraw from the Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a year’s time.

The legal veracity of this type of notification without proper consultation with and endorsement by parliament, which ratified the statute in domestic legislation, is still an open question. However, this seismic decision has far-reaching political ramifications for South Africa as it will shift how the country is perceived and received as an international actor.

South African opinion on this move has been split. Some have praised the government’s move against an institution that they believe has blatantly targeted Africans but left other violators of similar crimes untouched. Others have rued the decision, regarding it as another indicator of South Africa’s regression from the moral high ground it occupied after 1994.

Ironically, South Africa and other African countries were among the first supporters of the Rome Statute. Most African states have ratified the Rome Statute, as has all of South America, most of Central America and the EU states. Lest we forget, the discussions around the establishment of this court had been preceded in the 1990s by the Rwandan genocide and the broader Great Lakes conflict, and the mass atrocities committed in the Balkans as Yugoslavia disintegrated.

The noble objective of the ICC was to end the impunity of leaders, but only as a court of last resort. It was not meant to usurp sovereignty a priori or initiate regime change, but rather to provide recourse for victims in instances where states were unwilling or unable.

It has been frequently emphasised that with the exception of one referral from the Security Council, most of the African cases have been referred to the ICC by Africans themselves. But in a year in which we celebrate post-truth politics, the facts clearly don’t matter.

Should we be surprised?

Many South African foreign policy analysts have spent much of the last two decades lauding the country’s soft power, its moral high ground that has allowed it to punch above its weight and its dogged commitment to the establishment of a fairer, more rules-based international order. The country’s abundant soft power has come from its compelling peaceful transition, the narrative of reconciliation, and its commitment to good global citizenship. SA continues to advocate for reform of the global system to reflect the changing power relations and rise of many countries in the South, even if progress is very slow.

Nevertheless, since the end of the Cold War and the rise of the liberal international order there has been a gradual move in the global governance domain to adopt rules for a more just international society and one in which national sovereignty is not a convenient cover for perpetrators of mass atrocities and human rights violations. People, and not just states, have been recognised as needing protection from the impunity with which some states operate, and the mass atrocities of the 1990s in Europe and Africa attest to such an imperative.

Yet, in recent years South Africa’s foreign policy has displayed a worrying trend that has placed non-interference and sovereignty at the pinnacle of its international relations. This trend has been the result of a growing distrust of the actions of the West, of which the invasion of Iraq was the pioneer, but which was fortified by the invasion of Libya and the ensuing mayhem across the Sahel.

In addition, South Africa has been more coy about standing out from the African consensus, and officials have often said in private that the positions the government has taken on certain matters in international forums has been necessary to maintain African unity.

Lastly, the judicial embarrassment the government had to endure for allowing President Bashir to attend an AU summit in SA in June 2015, and subsequently its efforts to sneak him out of the country in the face of a court order that he should be prevented from leaving, were probably the last straw. Clearly, arresting president Bashir would have caused a diplomatic ‘incident’ and possibly foreshadowed SA’s isolation from the continent, but the government should not have flouted its own laws, especially after its representations to the ICC to waive its obligations under the Rome Statute so as to allow President Bashir to attend the AU Summit, were rejected. It should have simply – as it had done previously – strongly advised him that he could not attend. But the government did not. At the time, Obed Bapela, head of the ANC’s international relations committee, was quoted as saying that ‘the stance to choose Africa over the ICC was the best decision’.

This has become a country that follows, not leads.

The ANC’s discussion documents in preparation for the National General Council in September 2015 articulated the ruling party’s strong anti-Western and anti-imperialist perspective of the world. In its section on International Relations, the ICC made up most of the document’s section on ‘Transformation and Global Governance’. In arguing against South Africa’s continued membership of the Court, the ANC document described the ICC as a tool for regime change in Africa, and as an institution that has tended to act as a proxy instrument for non-member states. It ends by stressing that Africa must build its own alternative to the ICC and that it must operationalise the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR). But the Malabo Protocol of 2014 has not been ratified by any state yet; it requires 15 ratifications to come into effect.

It is worth quoting from the NGC document to understand better the drivers of the ANC’s thinking on the ICC:

It is our view however that the ICC has gradually diverted from its mandate and allowed itself to be influence [sic] by powerful non-member states. We perceive it as tending to act as a proxy instrument for these states, which see no need to subject them [sic] to its discipline, to persecute African leaders and effect regime change on the continent. It is being used as a court against Africa, deliberately oblivious to the fact that African countries themselves were vocal in their support for the necessity of such a mechanism, with for example, Senegal being the first country to ratify the Rome Statute.

[…]
There is no national interest value for South Africa to continue being a member of the ICC. The manner that we were treated around the al-Bashir incident is consistent with the cheeky arrogance that Africa has experienced in its interaction with the ICC. Continuing to be in the ICC especially when the big powers who are calling the shots are themselves nit [sic] members, gives it the legitimacy it does not deserve. The West dominates the ICC through the influence they command within its structures and the huge financial contributions they make to its budget. In return, they use the ICC as their tool for regime change in Africa.

Trade-offs of peace: Justice vs Immunity

The instrument of withdrawal emphasises that while peace and justice must be viewed as complementary SA has found that its ICC obligations inhibit its ability to pursue the peaceful resolution of disputes in other parts of the world. At the press conference Minister of Justice, Mike Masutha, added that in prosecuting a sitting head of state from another country, it could imply that SA chose to be ‘complicit in the practice of forced regime change’.

However, the real nub of the issue is the immunity of sitting heads of state. The ACJHR is in essence and structure exactly the same as the ICC especially after the Malabo Protocol included the International crimes element – the only patent difference is that it exempts sitting heads of state from indictment….this issue is problematic because in so many of the instances, states are the perpetrators of violence against their people.

None of SA’s actions in the DRC, South Sudan, or Burundi were at risk because of ICC indictments. Neither was Bashir invited to SA last July to participate in peace negotiations. The ICC should be seen as one of the tools to ending conflicts and bringing both justice and peace to countries. Justice and peace are not incompatible, although the balance between them is not always easy. By leaving the ICC SA is asserting that in the interests of stability justice will be foregone.

Nevertheless, making peace always requires trade-offs. That may be one of the lessons from the recent experience of the Bashir issue at the ICC. As Sidiropoulos noted in June last year,

[t]he indictment of the first sitting president al-Bashir in 2009 emphasised that no-one was above the law. Yet it raised a related tension between the practical imperatives of ending a conflict and justice for the victims that would not contemplate immunity from impunity. The imperatives of a political settlement would require that such indictment be recalled in the interests of negotiating an exit from the conflict, a case that the AU and South Africa made at the time.

However, the intention of the ICC was to act as a deterrent to leaders acting with impunity. For too long, unaccountable governments have been able to hide behind sovereignty to justify their perpetration of mass atrocities. African citizens have often been the victims with very little recourse to redress.

After more than a decade of operation, the Rome Statute may well require reform, but a developing country like South Africa is virtually powerless to reform it from the outside. Rather it should have opted to harness its relative power on the continent to build coalitions from the inside to drive a reform agenda that prioritises some of the trade-offs that are necessary for peace.

South Africa should be leading the continent in resolving these seeming contradictions in the creation of an international framework that reduces impunity. For example, it could motivate for the inclusion of incentives within the Statute that allow for the suspension of indictments if meaningful efforts are being undertaken to arrive at peace. Where peace has been attained such indictments could be suspended indefinitely provided there was a truth and reconciliation process in the country/region involved. Adam Habib, writing in the Sunday Times in June last year, set out three conditions that should be pushed by African states to address the issue of double standards. First the court must not have any political or legal engagement with or take any mandate from any non-signatory nation; second, citizens of non-signatory countries may be employed by the ICC only if they formally disassociate themselves from their government’s refusal to join; and third, the court’s mandate must be extended to cover rights abuses everywhere.

The power dynamics in the world have changed from the late 1990s and early 2000s, making it even more difficult to mobilise consensus on what reforms would address the ICC’s weaknesses, including its being perceived as an instrument of imperialism. But that does not mean that States Parties should not try. By withdrawing South Africa has closed the door on leading a reform-minded coalition, and left itself open to scrutiny as an important norm creator in the region.

Softly, softly and South Africa’s soft power

The decision not to pursue a reform agenda signals a worrying shift in SA foreign policy given that it is not clear what instrument it will draw on outside of the ICC. The African Court on Justice and Human Rights is not yet operational, absent the required ratification by 15 member states. While the Court’s jurisdiction is broader than that of its predecessors, the Malabo Protocol excludes sitting heads of state or government and senior officials from its jurisdiction. So, it will not step into the ICC lacuna. Taken in conjunction with the SADC Heads of State decision in 2013 in Malawi to limit the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal to disputes between members states (whereas previously citizens were able to approach the court for redress of human rights violations), South Africa’s latest step suggests that it is more concerned about protecting leaders and their dignity and less about citizens and their rights. This is a significant departure from its purported values of protecting the human rights of Africa’s citizens. Ironically, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, in the Constitutional Court ruling on whether the decisions of the SADC Tribunal were binding, in 2013, after SADC had taken the decision to disband it, emphasised the importance of a regional tribunal ‘where human rights related complaints particularly by citizens against their States’ could be taken.

While South Africa follows Burundi in announcing its intention to withdraw from the ICC, it is likely that other African leaders will follow suit. Yet, it is also worth remembering that at the AU Summit in July, Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal and Tunisia opposed calls for a mass withdrawal from the ICC.

However, those citizens of the continent who have suffered from the gross injustices and violence of government forces in Darfur (for example) will be disappointed that a flag bearer of human rights (given its own history of injustice and repression) has turned its back on a global body that was established to fight the impunity of the strong.

SA’s decision will be seen by many in the human rights community and other signatories not as an attempt to strengthen its obligations with respect to the peaceful resolution of disputes, but rather as an unwillingness to take a stand against fellow African leaders. The fact that the government’s announcement to withdraw was not accompanied by a clear explanation of what instruments it intended to rely on in the absence of the ICC, accompanied by the fact that it has deliberately disarmed the SADC Tribunal – further calls into question the country’s commitment to a people-centred approach to security.

Inspirational soft power drove South Africa’s standing in global forums. It was able to straddle both worlds, work towards compromise and incrementally help to improve the global rules of the game, including in fighting against oppression and for the right of every person to dignity. Unfortunately, the narrative of African sovereignty that is aimed at asserting African dignity (driven by the experience of Western colonialism) has actually become not the dignity and rights of ordinary African citizens but those of African leaders and the elite.

*About the authors:
Elizabeth Sidiropoulos is the chief executive, Neuma Grobbelaar the director of research and Aditi Lalbahadur is the programme manager of the Foreign Policy Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Source:
This article was published at SAIIA

Hong Kong: Thousands Protest China Intervention, Police Fire Pepper Spray

0
0

Thousands of people took to the streets of Hong Kong on Sunday in protest against Beijing’s intervention in a row over the swearing-in of two pro-independence lawmakers, with police firing pepper spray on demonstrators amid clashes later in the evening.

Huge crowds poured out in a mass march against a planned interpretation of the city’s mini-constitution by China’s parliament, later using umbrellas to ward off pepper spray attacks in clashes reminiscent of the 2014 pro-democracy movement.

The initial march rallied outside the Court of Final Appeal in the city, amid strong criticism that intervention by ruling Chinese Communist Party officials had damaged the independence of the city’s courts.

Organizers said some 11,000 people, some of whom were chanting pro-independence slogans, turned out for the main demonstration, while police put the figure at 8,000.

Live footage of the protests streamed to the website of the Apple Daily newspaper showed rows of police in full riot gear lining the edge of a large crowd late on Sunday, while loudspeakers urged them to “leave immediately.”

The standoff and clashes continued until the early hours of the morning in working-class Western District, where some of the crowd unidentified objects and wielded umbrellas to shield themselves against pepper spray.

Protesters faced off against police in at least two areas by the Western police station, local media reported.
China’s rubber-stamp parliament has said it will discuss the status of newly elected pro-independence lawmakers Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching after they used their swearing-in ceremonies to protest Beijing’s rule in the city.

The pair had their oaths rejected last month after they pledged allegiance to “the Hong Kong Nation” and not to China. They later attempted to re-take their oaths, but were prevented by a mass walkout by pro-Beijing LegCo members that rendered the meeting invalid.

“For them to issue an interpretation at this time would have a huge influence on the court’s decision making,” protest organizer Au Nok-hin told the rally earlier in the day.

“Why not trust Hong Kong’s judicial system? Why do they have to trample it with a ruling from the National People’s Congress (NPC)?” he said. “This should be resolved at the local level.”

Undermining Hong Kong courts

Article 104 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, requires that holders of public office swear allegiance both to the Hong Kong government and to the People’s Republic of China. Arguments were heard in a judicial review by the city’s High Court on Thursday, but top lawyers warned that any pronouncement by Beijing would undermine the city’s courts.

As the protests escalated on Sunday, former Occupy Central student leader Nathan Law, who was recently elected as a lawmaker, called on the crowd to leave after the rally.

“We are currently in unfavorable position, geographically. I suggest we leave now,” he told the crowd.

But hundreds were still there at around 4.00 a.m. on Monday, local time, live video feeds showed.
Yau Wai-ching called on people to find their own methods to protest the intervention.
“I suggest we continue the rally but in the ‘wild cat’ style. Everyone can do it his way,” she said.

As public anger spilled onto Hong Kong’s streets, China’s state-controlled media stepped up support for direct intervention.

NPC delegates were quoted by state broadcaster CCTV as saying that Leung and Yau were a threat to China’s “sovereignty and security.”

“The central government cannot sit by indifferently,” they were quoted as saying.

The broadcast said an interpretation was “very timely and extremely necessary,” Reuters reported.

No tolerance for separatist ideas

Democratic Party founder member Martin Lee, who helped draft the Basic Law before the 1997 handover to Chinese rule, accused Chinese officials of interfering with the separation of powers in Hong Kong.

“Now, normally this is a matter for the court, but now they want to give it to the secretary-general of the Legislative Council, and he is a civil servant, who will then decide whether such a person is honest about his intentions,” Lee told Hong Kong government broadcaster RTHK.

“If there is an interpretation, it will not be up to our judges to decide whether someone who has been elected as a Legislative Councillor and who has taken an oath in an unusual way, whether that will be interpreted as [their] having declined or neglected to give the oath,” Lee said.

Both Yau and Leung are members of the pro-independence group Youngspiration. A recent opinion survey showed that almost 40 percent of young people in Hong Kong favor independence for the city in 2047, when existing arrangements with China expire.

But Beijing has repeatedly warned that “separatist” ideas won’t be tolerated in the former British colony, and recent election candidates were forced to sign a declaration rejecting independence for the former British colony.

Maria Tam, who represents Hong Kong at the NPC, said Chinese officials “resolutely oppose” any words or deeds that “split the country.”

“They believe that the oath should be a solemn thing, and that there are legitimate conditions to be observed,” she said on Sunday.

Under the terms of the 1997 handover, Hong Kong was promised a “high degree of autonomy” and the continuation of its traditional freedoms for 50 years.

But journalists, lawyers and diplomats have said that Hong Kong’s traditional freedoms of speech, publication and judicial independence are now being eroded, following the cross-border detentions of five booksellers and an attempt by city officials to influence sentences handed down to leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy protests by a local court.

Reported by Lee Lai and Dai Weisen for RFA’s Cantonese Service. Translated and written in English by Luisetta Mudie.

Currency-Printing: South Asia-South Korea’s Trustworthy Relations In 1980s – Analysis

0
0

South Korea’s currency-printing technology was well-received in many Asian countries in the 1980s when they encountered currency shortage crisis and outsourced currency printing. In South Asia in particular, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Pakistan were the countries where ‘made-in-Korea’ banknotes and coins were circulated. Further, South Korea’s currency- printing technology was transferred to some countries like Bhutan for it to produce its currency notes indigenously. Such export of currency notes whose printing was outsourced to South Korea and the country’s technology transfer to South Asian state-customers is significant, in the sense that (1) possessing its own and producing the unique national currencies of other countries enhance South Korea’s state legitimacy and power, and (2) South Korea-South Asia relations have been built based on such mutual trust and confidence.

By Sojin Shin1

Possession of a unique national currency within the geographical extent of territory is considered as an indispensable component of sovereignty because currency strength is closely linked to state legitimacy and power. Such national monetary strength will be constrained if the multiple currencies of a certain country including coins and banknotes are not sufficiently circulating in the national territory.

The shortage of currency production is one of the occasions. The failure of managing money supply will also affect the macroeconomic management like inflation control. Many of Asian countries in the 1980s had the lack of currencies for some reasons. In most of the cases, the shortage stemmed from the lack of technology to establish their own mints and the lack of capacity to produce the high quality and enough quantity of currencies.

In the currency shortage crisis, South Korea was the lead of exporting banknotes and coins to many countries in Asia. In South Asia in particular, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Pakistan were the countries where ‘made-in-Korea’ currencies were circulated. The South Asian countries made their money supplier to test both technology and security standards. At that time, South Korea’s currency-printing technology was advanced enough to compete with other Western countries that exported banknotes and coins to many countries in Asia.
Considering outsourcing currencies can easily involve with financial security setbacks, South Asian countries must have built trust and confidence toward South Korea. It meant that the South Asian countries considered South Korea as a trustable partner that they can bear sovereignty and security problems. For South Korea, production of currencies for South Asian countries meant more than business for such reasons.

India’s Coin Shortage Crisis in the Mid-1980s

There was a period of domestic currency shortage in the 1980s in India when the Government of India needed to import coins to cater to the demand of the people. Three mints—Hyderabad, Bombay, and Calcutta—were producing coins at that time, but their production capacity did not meet the request. They produced 525 million pieces of coins in 1981-82, 650 million pieces in 1982-83, and 1 billion pieces in 1983-84. The Government of India targeted to provide 2 billion pieces of coins for the year 1985. However, the capacity of the three mints was up to around 1.3 billion pieces.

Their lack of production capacity to mint coins became the trigger for the Coinage Bill Amendment in 1985. Vishwanath Pratap Singh who served as the Minister of Finance and Commerce proposed the Coinage Bill Amendment in the meeting of Parliament to import coins from foreign countries. 2 Many of the Members of Parliament (MPs) criticized the Government’s dysfunction over the issue. They pointed out that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) did not adequately function to lift coins from the mints. The shortage of coins meant that the weaker section of citizens using them more often encountered difficulties. It made some of the MPs more upset over the agenda. In addition, the MPs were worried about the financial security as minting of coins in other countries may occur the currency smuggling issue.

Despite the concerns, the Government of India decided to import coins from other nations to meet the target of securing 2 billion pieces of coins in 1985-86. Three foreign mints were asked to produce coins for India—Birmingham Mint in the UK, KOMSCO in South Korea, and Royal Canadian Mint in Canada. Table 1 presents the number of coins imported from the three foreign countries to India during the period 1985-1987.3 The total cost for the imported coins was around 300 crore rupees at that time.

India’s Import of Coins (1985-1987)

India’s Import of Coins (1985-1987)

Korean Mint’s Outstanding Performance in Currency-Printing for South Asia

According to the Korea Minting Security Printing & ID Card Operating Corporation (KOMSCO), KOMSCO participated into the bid for the contract of producing 50 paise coins and succeeded. Shinjo Kang, who served as the CEO of KOMSCO from 1985 to 1989, told that he could not remember how the bid went yet reminded of the export of coins to India as a significant experience to expand KOMSCO’s business to other countries in South Asia.4

KOMSCO wrote that workers in the Korean mint work in three eight-hour shifts without having any holidays to meet the export demand from India.5

KOMSCO could increase the additional 25% of coin production in 1986 for export to India thanks to the workers’ efforts.6 In 1986, KOMSCO won the two times of contract for exporting 750 million pieces of 50 paise coins and supplied the coins without any setback. At that point, an official visited KOMSCO from India for a preliminary inspection. He was unable to distinguish disqualified coins from qualified coins that KOMSCO selected. KOMSCO wrote that the inspector realized that the preliminary inspection process was not necessary for such elaborate workmanship and went back to India before the schedule.

In fact, Bangladesh was the first country in South Asia to which KOMSCO exported currencies. KOMSCO was successful in the bid for the contract of producing 100 million of 20 taka banknotes in 1977.7 KOMSCO noted that there were only around 20 countries in the world having the capacity of producing their currencies with advanced technology at that time. For getting the bid for Bangladesh, KOMSCO had to compete with other European mints including the UK’s Thomas De La Rue company. KOMSCO seemed to lose its cooperative relations with Thomas De La Rue after succeeding at the export contract with Bangladesh in 1977 as Thomas De La Rue also aimed at the bid. Despite the severe competition with other European mints, KOMSCO could manage to bid for the contracts of producing differing types of banknotes such as 5, 20, and 50 taka bills for Bangladesh until 1989 (see Picture 1-A). Bangladesh established a mint by then, yet its technology was not reaching to produce high- denomination notes. The total export of taka banknotes from South Korea to Bangladesh during 1977-1989 was around US$9.4 million.8 Further, KOMSCO also provided prize bond, a kind of certificate of deposit, which needed a higher quality than banknotes for the prevention of forgery for Bangladesh during the same period.

After making and exporting banknotes and coins to Bangladesh and India successfully, KOMSCO began to negotiate with the Bhutanese government to win a bid for another contract in 1987. KOMSCO finally obtained the order and provided 13.5 million pieces of four types of banknotes—10, 20, 50, and 100 ngultrum—for the Bhutanese government in 1989 (see Picture 1-B).9 The total export of ngultrum banknotes from South Korea to Bhutan in 1989 was about US$315 thousand.

Further, KOMSCO provided US$71 thousand worth of banknote paper for one rupee notes for Pakistan in 1987.10 The Pakistani government requested more banknote paper from South Korea in 1989. However, KOMSCO could not make a contract with Pakistan due to its limited supply. KOMSCO’s production capacity already reached the peak by then due to increased export.

Technology Transfer to Royal Monetary Authority in Bhutan

Bhutan had imported all types of banknotes and coins from Europe before KOMSCO supplied the four types of banknotes in 1989. After that, the Bhutanese government was content with the quality of made-in-Korea notes and requested South Korea to assist in establishing a mint that could produce its domestic currencies.11 In fact, South Korea initially planned to provide a fund for Bhutan to support the mint-building project. However, Bhutan decided to use the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s aid for the project. In April 1990, South Korea and Bhutan signed a contract for the project to build the Royal Monetary Authority (RMA). The contract stipulated that South Korea would provide necessary machines to produce and examine currencies, technology transfer to workers from Bhutan, and assistance for the coinage reform.

As part of the coinage reform, the Bhutanese government also asked South Korea to design the both sides of six differing types of coins—5, 10, 25, 50 chetrum, 1 and 5 ngultrum. By then, the design was not consistent among the same denominated coins because the coins were imported from various countries from Europe. The inconsistent design of coins made not only foreigners but also local citizens confuse with their coins. KOMSCO provided a new set of design for the six types of coins in August 1990: the design included previous monarchs, Buddhist symbols like fish and lotus flowers. It also offered technology transfer for the workers visited South Korea from Bhutan and necessary assistance to operate RMA in 1991. KOMSCO sent five workers from South Korea to Bhutan to support technology service in the RMA for 14 months when RMA was established in 1991.

South Korea’s Currency-Printing for Other Asian Countries

South Korea’s currency-printing technology was well-known not only in South Asia but also to other Asian countries such as China, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore. KOMSCO exported US$72 thousand worth of 1 and 5 yuan coins to China from 1973 to 1982. For the Philippines, it supplied seven types of government stamps from 1972 to 1980. KOMSCO made a contract with the Thai government in 1985 to provide US$720 thousand worth of banknote paper for 50 baht bills. It continued to export the banknote paper for 50 baht and 500 baht bills to Thailand until the early 1990s. In 1986, KOMSCO shipped 116 million pieces of three differing types of coins—10, 20, and 50 cent—to Singapore.

Conclusion

South Korea’s currency-printing technology was well-received in many Asian countries in the 1980s when they encountered currency shortage crisis. South Korea’s exporting currencies to those countries at that time meant something beyond its success of business, because importing domestic currencies from foreign countries can easily involve with financial security setbacks. It meant that not only South Korea’s currency-printing technology was a world-class level but also South Korea’s bilateral relations with the countries were firmly based on trust and confidence. India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Pakistan were the countries in South Asia where ‘made-in-Korea’ banknotes and coins were circulated. Furthermore, South Korea’s currency- printing technology transfer to Bhutan was significant in a sense that possessing and producing unique national currencies closely links to national monetary strength.

Source:
This article was published by ISAS as ISAS Insights No. 357 (PDF)

Notes:
1 Dr Sojin Shin is Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore. She can be contacted at isassos@nus.edu.sg. The author, not ISAS, is liable for the facts cited and opinions expressed in this paper. The author would like to thank KOMSCO’s Overseas Strategy & Business Team and Hoasun Shin for providing KOMSCO’s data.
2 See the Government of India, “The Coinage (Amendment) Bill, 1985,” Rajya Sabha Debate, 17 May 1985 (Accessed on 14 September 2016).
3 See the Government of India, “Import of Coins,” Rajya Sabha Debate, 2 August 1988 (Accessed on 14 September 2016).
4 Author’s phone interview on 13 July 2014.
5 KOMSCO (1986), The 35 Years of History in KOMSCO [Hangukjopyegongsa 35nyeonsa], Daejeon: KOMSCO. P .239.
6 Ibid., p.240.
7 Ibid., p.237.
8 KOMSCO (1991), The 40 Years of History in KOMSCO [Hangukjopyegongsa 40nyeonsa], Daejeon: KOMSCO. P .277.
9 Ibid., p.278.
10 Ibid., p.286.
11 Ibid. pp.281-82.

Faulty Gene Causes Newly Discovered Human Immunodeficiency

0
0

A multinational team of researchers working under the EU-funded IMMUNOCORE project have discovered a new genetic defect that results in the body’s inability to successfully fight infection.

The paper, published in the ‘Nature Immunology’ journal, expands on how the research team identified a 12 year-old patient who suffered repeated life-threatening infections since his birth. Three of the patient’s six siblings had died within their first two years seemingly of a similar disorder. The scientists suspected that a genetic condition might be the culprit.

“Our analyses of the patient’s and his parents’ genomes indeed confirmed that the boy’s disorder had a genetic cause,” said Dr. Elisabeth Salzer, first author of the paper.

Specifically, the genetic cause is an error in the gene RASGRP1 that renders the gene inactive. This type of mutation had never been reported before, with the healthy parents and healthy siblings carrying one mutated copy of the gene and one normal copy that compensates for the faulty gene. The patient though inherited one mutated copy from each parent.

The patient has a primary immunodeficiency that involves a new combination of immune defects in essential members of the immune system, in particular T cells, B cells and Natural Killer cells. Until now, the role played by RASGRP1 has not been studied in humans.

To determine the mechanisms that might lead to the patient’s inability to fight infections, the IMMUNOCORE team, based in Vienna, Austria, collaborated with the lab of Dr. Jordan Orange at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

“The clinical characteristics of the patient suggested that some of the defective immune mechanisms of his condition were of the type we study in our lab,” commented Orange. “We applied our expertise on quantitative and high-resolution imaging to study the effects of the RASGRP1 mutation in Natural Killer cells.”

The Baylor group found that RASGRP1 plays a role in dynein functions in Natural Killer cells, with dynein being a motor protein – its function is to move things around inside cells.

“Like motorised vehicles carrying people around a city, motor proteins such as dynein transport items in cells where they need to go,” explained Orange. “Natural killer cells rely heavily on the dynein transportation system to secrete poisons onto deceased cells, cells infected with viruses for instance, to destroy them. In this diease, the ‘motorised vehicles’ are not working properly; the poison cannot be transported to the virus-infected cells and the patient cannot get rid of infections.”

The studies from the Orange lab provided a functional link between the defects in Natural Killer cells and dynein, which in combination with other observations led the Austrian IMMUNOCORE team to try the drug lenalidomide to treat the patient. Positively, the drug showed the potential to reverse some of the effects of the RASGRP1 mutation.

“The whole process from the discovery of a gene defect as the cause of a rare disease to the exploration of the disease-causing mechanism to the development of a personalised therapy does much more than helping the affected patients,” said Dr. Kaan Boztug, senior author of the paper. “Virtually every case, such as the immunodeficiency of this young patient, provides profound new insights into the human organism and paves the way towards a future precision medicine.”

Understanding Impact Of Migration On Migrant Families

0
0

Pick up the daily newspaper or turn on the evening news and one issue that is bound to make headlines is migration. But despite these headlines, migration in Europe is anything but new – and its impact extends well beyond today’s political rhetoric.

Migration to and around Europe has been occurring for decades and, as a result, the continent’s population is changing and its societies are becoming more ethnically diverse. Although it’s well-known that migrants and their families face many changes when moving from their country of origin to their new home, remarkably little is known about the impact international migration has on the life course of migrants and their families.

To learn more about this impact, the FAMILIFE project investigated the lives of migrants and migrant families both here in Europe and in their country of origin. Research focused on three themes: 1) population dynamics of first and second generation immigrants in Europe; 2) the effect of migration on intergenerational solidarity and family ties; and 3) the effect of migration on the individual life course, comparing the trajectory of a migrants’ life course with that of a non-migrant.

“Migrants are often exclusively studied in their countries of destination, but to better understand life courses and study changes in demographic behaviour, we also need to pay attention to the country of origin,” said project leader Dr Helga A.G. de Valk. “By only focusing on the country of destination, we overlook the importance of these processes and thus wrongly ascribe changes in migrant behavior to adaptation processes in the destination country.”

Here and away

An example of how this difference in demographic behaviour plays out can be seen in the diffusion of divorce patterns in Turkey. Using demographic and health surveys, complemented with data on economic development, FAMILIFE researchers found that divorce in Turkey has become much more common in the past decade. However, this varies substantially by region and the level of changing demographic behavior towards relationships that one is exposed to.

“Looking at the regional context and likelihood of divorce, we found that women who live in a region where divorce is more common are more likely to divorce themselves,” said Dr de Valk. “But a woman’s migration experience also plays a role, with those who have been away being more likely to separate from their partner later in life.”

Dr de Valk adds that although economic development and opportunities are important, the diffusion of cultural norms in the country of origin is clearly more relevant to the observed increase in divorce rates within the Turkish context.

On the other hand, when it comes to intergenerational ties and work-family balance, the country of destination is more important. Here in Europe, the exchange of support between adult children and their parents varies substantially from one country to another. Interestingly, this gradient of support is not only found in the majority population, but is equally reflected among the migrant populations residing in these countries.

“As a result, a Turkish born person in Germany resembles a German born person more than a Turkish person living in the Netherlands,” said Dr de Valk. “This can also be seen in the participation of second generation migrant women in the workforce before and after childbearing, where we see that societies with strong normative ideas on a mother’s labour market attachment result in behaviour among migrant women that is more comparable to the native majority group.”

According to Dr de Valk, this is particularly true in the case of the children of immigrants who are born and raised in Europe, where a clear adaptation to the destination country’s norms is seen.

Showing and telling the migrant experience

Of course this is only a small sampling of the many important insights gained from the FAMILIFE project’s research, all of which have been widely disseminated via an array of presentations, papers and the FAMILIFE website.

Furthermore, to ensure these important findings are communicated to a wider, non-academic audience, the project invited various artists to provide their artistic interpretations of the FAMILIFE research. The result is three short movies and an art exhibition. Each of the movies covers one of the project’s sub-themes, whereas the art exhibition features the artwork of third and fourth year students from The Hague’s Royal Academy of Art.

Source: CORDIS


Creating A Legal Precedent: Palestine Considers Suing Israel In International Sports Court – Analysis

0
0

The Palestine Football Association (PFA), in a first testing of Palestine’s ability to fight its battle with Israel in international courts, plans to go to the world’s top court for sports in a bid to force its Israeli counterpart to view Israeli settlements on the West Bank as occupied territory rather than an extension of the Jewish state.

The potential Palestinian move follows the Palestinian Authority’s campaign to isolate Israel in international organizations and challenge Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Using soccer as a testing ground, Palestine’s efforts to confront Israel in international organizations has produced mixed results. While Palestine succeeded in joining various international organizations, the PFA last year failed to muster sufficient votes to persuade world soccer body FIFA to suspend Israel. The PFA argued that the policies of the Israeli government and the Israel Football Association (IFA) violated FIFA rules as well as international law governing the status of occupied territory.

The PFA has since been unable to push FIFA towards any punitive steps against Israel. Instead, FIFA opted to monitor developments and attempt with little success to negotiate a way out of the impasse. Palestine is expected to take legal recourse if FIFA fails to take more decisive action at its next council meeting in January.

The PFA’s focus since failing to get Israel suspended has been on banning six clubs that are based in Israeli settlements on the West Bank from playing in Israeli lower divisions. FIFA rules stipulate that clubs based in a recognized federation’s territory cannot play in leagues of another soccer association without the permission of the home federation. The PFA rejects the notion of granting permission because it believes that it would legitimize Israeli settlements and the occupation.

PFA President Jibril Rajoub suggested that the PFA would take its case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after a seven-hour meeting earlier this month of a FIFA committee headed by Tokyo Sexwale failed to resolve the issue.

Mr. Sexwale is scheduled to visit Israel later this month for a meeting with Israeli sports minister Miri Regev. The FIFA Council is scheduled to discuss the issue at its next meeting in January. The PFA is likely to prepare its case for CAS, but wait with filing it until after the January meeting.

Israel sees the Palestinian demands and threat as strengthening the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) that sees penalization as a means of forcing the Jewish state to alter its policies and ultimately withdraw from territory occupied during the 1967 Middle East war.

Condemnation of the Israeli occupation and settlements by the United Nations Security Council constitutes the legal basis for the PFA’s approach as well as potential challenges in international courts.

The strength of the Palestinian position has been weakened changing Gulf attitudes towards Israel and Saudi and United Arab Emirates pressure on Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. Gulf states, despite paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, have become more public about their informal relations with Israel based on common opposition to expanding Iranian influence in the region.

Writing in the kingdom’s controlled press, a prominent Saudi journalist went as far as calling for the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel. The UAE last year agreed to the opening of an Israeli diplomatic mission accredited to the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency rather than the UAE government. Bahrain, as part of an agreement to host next year’s FIFA congress, has consented to issue visas to representatives of the IFA. Israeli nationals are barred from travelling to Gulf countries.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been pressuring Mr. Abbas to resolve his differences with Mohammed Dahlan, the controversial former Abu Dhabi-based Gaza strongman who is an archenemy of the Palestinian president. Mr. Dahlan is widely seen as a successor to 81-year old Mr. Abbas, who would be acceptable to Israel.

Israel may be able to count on some degree of tacit Gulf support within FIFA but is likely nonetheless to ultimately have to be seen to be accepting some kind of compromise that throws a bone to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians’ focus on the Israeli West Bank teams has however raised the bar for Israel. An agreement between Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and former FIFA president Sepp Blatter struck last year addresses many of the PFA’s grievances but not the issue of six the West Bank teams. Their status goes to the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: the legal status of territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

Under the agreement, Mr. Netanyahu proposed to give Palestinian players special identity cards and place sports liaison officials at crossings between Palestinian areas and those under Israeli control in a bid to eliminate obstacles to free movement that complicated the development of Palestinian soccer. Mr. Netanyahu further suggested to create an escort service that would facilitate players’ travel between the West Bank and Gaza that are separated by Israeli territory.

Israel initially appeared to live up to its promises by granting for the first time in 15 years, a West Bank team, Hebron’s Al Ahli, passage to Gaza to play a Palestine Cup final against the strip’s Al Shejaia. Hopes that this signalled a new beginning were however dashed when the PFA cancelled the return match in Hebron after Israel agreed to grant passage to only 33 of the 37 players who were scheduled to travel. Implementation of the agreement has since evaporated.

The PFA, by putting the West Bank teams at the top of their agenda, has made it tougher for FIFA and Israel to work out a compromise that would not have implications for the future of Israeli-Palestinian peace making. Israeli is likely to want to avoid subjecting its policies to the scrutiny of an international court. Yet, that may be exactly what would best serve the Palestine Authority’s overall strategy.

US And Turkey Plan Anti-Islamic State Operations In Syria

0
0

By Jim Garamone

U.S. and Turkish military leaders have hammered out a long-range plan for operations against ISIL in Syria.

Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with his counterpart Turkish Army Gen. Hulusi Akar at the General Staff headquarters in Ankara, Turkey on Sunday.

“The coalition and Turkey will work together on the long-term plan for seizing, holding and governing Raqqa,” Dunford said following his meetings.

He noted that operations against the so-called capital of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have already begun, even as operations against the terror group continue Mosul in Iraq.

Coordinate Operational Planning

Dunford said he meet with Akar to coordinate operational planning in many areas, including operations against ISIL in Raqqa, operations in Mosul and others. “Obviously as a close ally, we really just want to make sure that we’re completely tight as we work through some challenging issues,” he said.

The Syrian Democratic Forces has been a concern for Turkey since the inception of the anti-ISIL group last year. Originally composed primarily of Kurdish personnel, it is now more multiethnic and is actively pursuing operations against ISIL’s hold of Raqqa.

“[The SDF] are moving south to isolate the enemy that’s in the vicinity of Raqqa and in Raqqa,” the general said. “We always advertised that the isolation phase is going to take months.”

The SDF is making sure the ISIL forces that are in Mosul cannot reinforce the ISIL forces in Raqqa, and that the force in Raqqa cannot conduct external operations “into Turkey, into Europe and into the United States,” Dunford said. “We are going to limit their freedom of movement now even as we work on a long-term plan that is more viable for holding … Raqqa.”

Operation in Syria Continues

As this operation in Syria continues, the United States will continue to work with the Turks and others to determine the make-up of the forces that actually seize Raqqa and hold it and govern it, the chairman said.

“We always knew the SDF wasn’t the solution for holding and governing Raqqa,” Dunford said. “What we are working on right now is to find the right mix of forces for the operation.”

The right mix is for local tribes and other people from the vicinity of Raqqa to spearhead the operation and remain to hold and govern the city once it is taken from ISIL, Dunford said.

“[The operation needs] a predominantly Arab and Sunni Arab force,” he said. “And there are forces like that. There is the moderate Syrian opposition, the vetted Syrian forces and the Free Syrian Army forces, and there is some initial outreach to forces in Raqqa proper.”

Last year at this time, there were a couple of hundred Arabs inside the SDF — there are 12,000-plus now, Dunford said. The forces have grown significantly. Success breeds success and there are lot more forces to use. “As we close on Raqqa, we will identify other forces from the area that are willing to support operations there,” the chairman said.

The SDF is doing a great job in isolating ISIL inside Syria and limiting the freedom of movement of the enemy fleeing Mosul into Syria, he said.

Long-Held Promise

The meeting today reinforced the long-held promise that the coalition would not move ahead with the seizure phase in Raqqa “without incorporating the Turks and their perspective into our plans,” Dunford said. “They will be helpful in identifying the right forces to do that.”

The U.S. and Turkish officials also agreed that a high-ranking U.S. officer and staff will work in Ankara in the Turkish General Staff. That officer will report to U.S. Central Command commander Army Gen. Joe Votel. The officer will act as a point of contact for the Combined Joint Task Force operating against ISIL. “We want to be totally transparent about this with our Turkish ally,” Dunford said.

The general characterized the military-to-military relations between the two countries as excellent. In fact, he felt comfortable enough with his relations with Akar to call him on Friday and ask “if I could drop by” to discuss mutual issues on Sunday.

‘Realists’ On Russia – Analysis

0
0

In the US, the establishment Foreign Policy.com (FP) isn’t as realist geared as its establishment counterpart The National Interest, which is affiliated with the Center For The National Interest (CFTNI).

The Thomas Graham-Matthew Rojansky October 13 FP article “America’s Russia Policy Has Failed“, is a prime example of US foreign policy establishment articulated realism. Ideally, realists don’t engage in hypocritically negative and inaccurate characterizations, that can be easily thrown back at the other party to an issue.

In their FP article, Rojansky and Graham highlight Russia as “undemocratic” and characterize “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine…”, while sidestepping the cavalier Western foreign policy establishment attitude towards the overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, followed by a series of anti-Russian acts, that are opposed by a sizeable number on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. (On a comparative point, imagine FP accepting an article, that wrote of US aggression against Yugoslavia.)

The US government’s support for regimes less democratic than Russia puts into question the emphasis of portraying Russia as being undemocratic. For the better, (in terms of overall human rights) post-Soviet Russia isn’t the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia. The democratic USA sees a mass media that regularly gives negatively inaccurate impressions of Russia. Those opposing that reality are subject to being caricatured and kept out of high profile situations.

Rojansky and Graham say that: “As in the Cold War, there is an ideological element to U.S.-Russia competition today. However, rather than advocating Communist class struggle, Moscow is focused on diminishing American credibility.” Never mind that the reverse has been arguably more true. Before the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected president, the Kremlin sought a three way (Russian, Ukrainian and Western) cooperation in developing the troubled Ukrainian economy. On this score, the West pursued a zero sum game. Concerning Syria, the Russian government arguably appears more willing to cooperate with the US than vice versa.

The past month of October saw some featured non-realist thinking by the CFTNI – something that has been previously evident, as noted by yours truly in my April 7, 2016 Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF) article “Poland Saving the World From Russia Is a Historically Flawed Belief” and the updated April 8 Eurasia Review version “Fuzzy History: How Poland Saved the World From Russia“.

In essence, the CFTNI is following a general trend, discussed in my SCF article of this past March 17 “Limited US Foreign Policy Establishment Realism“. Regarding last month, the CFTNI had two instances of non-realist overview, that can be reasonably described as anti-Russian propaganda.

Myhola Murskyj’s October 24 piece “Syria Is Not Ukraine“, is better suited for a Ukrainian nationalist venue, as opposed to one that purports to be relatively objective. Several excerpts from Murskyj underscore this assessment.

According to him: “Russia fueled a conflict in the Donbass and annexed Crimea as a matter of principle: the Kremlin believes that Ukraine rightly belongs within its sphere of influence. Ukraine, on the other hand, sees its European aspirations as part of its slow crawl out from under the yoke of its colonial oppressor. Russia has politically dominated Ukraine since the early 1700s, with only a brief break after World War I. For three hundred years, the two countries cultural and political leaders have operated in both spaces. Leonid Brezhnev was Ukrainian. In today’s Kiev, you’d be hard-pressed to find a TV or radio show on which the speakers don’t frequently switch languages between Ukrainian and Russian, sometimes mid-sentence. So President Vladimir Putin has difficulty imagining that a country so similar to his own might prefer a European future.”

Russo-Ukrainian history is far more nuanced than the simplicity expressed in the above excerpted. Worth noting again: with the encouragement of Western neolibs, neocons and flat out Russia haters, an element of Ukrainian society went along with overthrowing a democratically elected president, followed by a series of increased anti-Russian actions, that’s opposed by many on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. Before the overthrow of  Yanukovych, numerous polls indicated a difference of within 10% on whether Ukrainian citizens preferred the EU or the Russian involved customs union. Concerning this issue, Yanukovych sought a practical relationship involving Russia and the West. BTW, Brezhnev’s ethnicity can be reasonably questioned. On at least one Soviet document, he’s listed as an ethnic Ukrainian. In the USSR, it was possible for someone to list an ethnicity other than their actual ethnic background. There’s also the matter of some people having two or more ethnic backgrounds and choosing to identify with one of them over the other or others.

Murskyj states: “Crimea is particularly close to the hearts of many Russians. When it was still part of the Russian SSR, Joseph Stalin deported all 230,000 of the peninsula’s indigenous Sunni Muslims, the Crimean Tatars, in order to make room for Russian settlers. In commemoration of the three hundredth anniversary of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, Nikita Khrushchev transferred the Crimean Peninsula from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR. After independence, many Crimean Tatars returned and were granted the right of self-government by Kiev. All that changed after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014. After two years of mounting persecution of Crimean Tatars, this past April the Russian authorities declared the Tatar Mejlis, or parliament, an extremist organization. Russians, however, feel that the annexation of Crimea corrects Khrushchev’s mistake, and ‘Crimea is Ours’ has become an important rallying slogan from Novgorod to Vladivostok.”

The aforementioned deportation of the Crimean Tatars was similarly premised to the internment of Japanese North Americans during the same period. (The former being more brutal than the latter, partly because the USSR was in much more dire wartime straits than North America .) The Rus Slav presence in Crimea predates that of the Tatars. The 1654 union between Russia and Cossacks on a portion of the territory of modern day Ukraine, was a mutually agreed occurrence and not an “annexation”, in the form of one side being in clear opposition. Elements in post-Soviet Ukraine have used the Crimean Tatars as propaganda against pro-Russian sentiment. The pro-Kiev regime Crimean Tatar activist Mustafa Dzhemilev, is on record for supporting the ethnic cleansing of Russians from Crimea. In contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin, has denounced the past internment of the Crimean Tatars, in addition to supporting the official three language policy (Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar) that Crimea has adopted, since its reunification with Russia. Crimea’s reunification with Russia has been virtually bloodless, much unlike what transpired in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.

Murskyj claims: “Without Russia’s military and logistical support for the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the war in Ukraine would have ended in August 2014, and then again in February 2015. Likewise, had Russia not begun an intensive air campaign in September 2015, President Assad may have been deposed by now.”

Is that a fact? It seems quite apparent that a clear majority of the Donbass situated rebels are from the former Ukrainian SSR, where there’s plenty of arms to be acquired. The actual degree of support from Russia to the Donbass rebels remains (to a good extent) debatable. Without any aid from Russia, there’s a basis to question whether the Kiev regime would’ve successfully eliminated all of the armed opposition in the area currently under the rebels’ control.

A pro-Kiev regime victory in Donbass might’ve created a more massive refugee situation. On this matter, some pro-Kiev regime advocates have made reference to the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina.

Murskyj gave one-sided inaccuracy on why Russia is involved in Syria. The non-Russian foreign interventions in Iraq and Libya haven’t brought greater stability. The Islamic terrorist element in Syria includes those favoring violence against Russia.

The CSPAN televised October 27 CFTNI panel on Russian media was a partisan affair. Maria Snegovaya exhibited an unhesitatingly brash demeanor in her faulty assertions. The other featured panelist, Anna Redkina, was a limited differential to Snegovaya. The Q & A segment consisted of individuals who (by their comments and questions) appeared to be agreeable with the prevailing slant of the panel.

Snegovaya rather incredulously characterized herself as a source seeking to present different sides to a given story. She coauthored with Vera Mironova, the June 19, 2014 New Republic article “Putin Is Behaving in Ukraine Like Milosevic Did in Serbia“, which parrots the flawed anti-Russian/anti-Serb slants, getting the nod at the leading Western media venues – that significantly mute counter-impressions like my July 14, 2014 Global Research rebuttal “Twisted History Against Russia and Serbia” – which among other things, provide details on the increased anti-Russian activity (after Yanukovych’s ouster) in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.

During the CFTNI panel, Snegovaya absurdly equated Anton Nossik’s statement about completely eliminating Syria, with being on par with Putin’s stand on that country. There was no opposing follow-up, noting the difference between seeking to obliterate a nation, versus going after a terrorist element, way short of looking to destroy the country.

The CFTNI panel simultaneously downplayed the lack of Anglo-American mass media diversity on Russian related issues and the numerous examples of media diversity in Russia. Some of the latter immediately come to mind. The May 5 Saker article “Counter Propaganda, Russian Style“, provides detailed examples. Touching on the same topic, the RIA Novosti affiliated InoSMI, regularly posts accurately translated (mostly English to Russian) Western mass media articles that are negative towards Russia.

In line with her limited commentary on censorship, Snegovaya lauded the differences between Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. On Russian related issues, these three networks have been biased against Russia. A few years ago on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly went at it with Stephen Cohen, with the latter doing quite well. To my knowledge, Cohen hasn’t been back at that station. Cohen (and like minded others) appearances on CNN and MSNBC are considerably less than those with negatively inaccurate biases against Russia. In the relatively few situations when someone thinking like Cohen appears on CNN and MSNBC, he/she is more likely to be rudely interrupted and attacked, when compared to those slanting to the preferred anti-Russian views.

For sure, Russian mass media can be improved upon. The CFNTI panel wasn’t devoid of valid criticisms. It’s nevertheless somewhat dishonest to accentuate Russian mass media faults (real and exaggerated) without doing high profile features on the Western mass media shortcomings. With that in mind, I’ll approve of a CSPAN televised, hard hitting CFTNI panel on US mass media flaws in covering Russia; which offers something substantively the opposite of Snegovaya. Likewise, FP will be more well rounded by providing (for lack of a better term) politically incorrect realist articles, from a constructively critical pro-Russian perspective. In following thru with these suggestions, the CFTNI and FP will look more objective when featuring negative commentary about Russia.

This of course applies to a number of other Western mass media venues as well. It’s a bit ironic that the authoritarian depicted Putin is among the most available of world leaders, when it comes to receiving and giving frank opinions in live media situations.

Pakistan’s Military Containment An Inescapable Indian Imperative – Analysis

0
0

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Pakistan’s military containment becomes an inescapable Indian security imperative in 2016. Despite, contemporary geopolitics heavily loaded against Pakistan, surge in Pakistan’s India-centric military confrontation is visible.

Pakistan should have been militarily contained decades back but then successive Indian Prime Ministers from Nehru to even present PM Modi until recently, adopted flawed policy of ‘Engagement with Pakistan’ through direct unilateral initiatives, Track II dialogues and Special Envoys.

Pakistan’s unrestrained conflict escalation with India has not matched India’s efforts for peace and reconciliation with Pakistan for the last seven decades. Geopolitically the time is now ripe for India to shed its enfeebling policy of ‘Strategic Restraint’ and ‘Risk Aversion’ when it comes to taming Pakistan’s strategic delinquencies arising from borrowed external strengths.

All along, Indian National Security Advisers have viewed the Pakistan Army challenge to India in political terms and not in stark military perspectives. There are no political options to tame the Pakistan Army. This has distorted the pace of India’s war preparedness and creation of appropriate military force structures.

Pakistan’s India-centric military confrontation during decades under United States strategic tutelage had a somewhat strong temperance factor imposed by America. The picture drastically changed since 2010 when Pakistan emerged as ‘Front Line State of China’ while still lingering with a double-timing of the United States. China cannot be expected to impose temperance on Pakistan when both have an anti-India strategic convergence.

In my SAAG Paper of 2010 the implications of China’s obtrusive footprints and presence in the Northern Areas and POK were strategically read and analysed as a forerunner of the military challenge that was in the making. In 2016 that stands fully crystallised as Pakistan has emerged as a full military ally of China as a willing and collusive partner of the China-Pakistan Axis which is primarily India-centric.

China’s relationship is not with the State and people of Pakistan but predominantly fixated on the Pakistan Army. In 2016, Pakistan is no longer a regional spoiler state acting at China’s behest but the Pakistan Army has evolved into China’s proxy tool of conflict escalation against India. The military contours of the China-Pakistan Axis are in full play when one notices that China opens up military stand-off in Demchok in Ladakh when the Pakistan Army was feeling the heat of Indian Army reprisals on the LOC in response to Pakistan Army’s conflict escalation.

Though the China-Pakistan Axis is not a global game changer but in the context of the Indian Subcontinent the military picture for India as outlined above becomes that more challenging calling for a drastic change in India’s existing policy approaches to Pakistan.

India’s past approaches of constructive political engagement and dialogues with Pakistan came to a naught because the Pakistan Army as the final arbiter derailed any peace initiative by India that was gaining traction in Pakistan with its civilian government.

Diplomatic and political containment of Pakistan attempted by PM Modi sine autumn of 2016 has not been able to rein-in Pakistan Army’s compulsive conflict escalation propensities on the LOC and the International Border. In reality, Pakistan Army has been in a surge mode of conflict escalation with India more pointedly from end of 2015 onwards.

Since geopolitical factors are heavily loaded against Pakistan, with exception of China, it was militarily illogical for the Pakistan Army to move in direction of conflict escalation on its borders with India.

That despite the above, the Pakistan Army is intent on conflict escalation indicates that Pakistan is counting heavily on China’s support to bail it out should its brinkmanship with India spill into a limited war or full-blown conflict. Within Pakistan calls stand recently made that China should formalise its military relationship into a formal military alliance treaty including mutual security implying military support in event of a war with India.

Strategic realism should finally dawn on the Indian policy establishment that in 2016 that the crux of the Pakistani challenges leaves India with the only realistic option of “Military Containment of Pakistan as an Inescapable Indian Security Imperative” since all other diplomatic and dialogues processes options have failed.

Pakistan’s military containment by India needs to target the Pakistan Army on two counts. One, in relation to its conflict escalation propensities against India and destroying the sources of Pakistan Army’s Jihadist terrorist affiliates that it spawns for terrorist attacks on India. Next, the denting of Pakistan Army’s domestic image within Pakistan focused on the stark reality that it is no longer the glue that holds Pakistan together but recessed once again to a pre-1971 mode of brutal suppression in Balochistan, Western Frontier tribal regions and in Gilgit and Skardu The last time that Pakistan Army behaved similarly led to secession of East Pakistan and its liberated emergence as the new State of Bangladesh.

Conflict escalation propensities of the Pakistan Army can be contained and curtailed by India by “Inflicting an Arms Race on Pakistan” which the Pakistan Army can ill-afford to match even if it devours disproportionate share of the Budget. Even China with all its financial resources will not be able to ‘subsidise’ the Pakistan Army attempts to match India’s growing military might in an arms race should India opt for that course. Geopolitically, it will not be cost-effective for China to do so. In fact India has to inflict on Pakistan what the United States inflicted on the Former Soviet Union to bring about its demise.

Short of war, the switch by India to the above advocated strategy would whittle down Pakistan Army’s military capabilities and strength to militarily challenge India and invite Pakistan Army’s self-destruction. Should the Pakistan Army so frustrated by India’s rising military profile be tempted to start a war with India, it should be welcomed to do so. Pakistan’s nuclear war threats bluff needs to called-off. As it is it is nothing more than a bluff and bluster. Pakistan Army very well knows that the Indian nuclear counter-strikes would make Pakistan extinct.

Jihadi terrorist affiliates of the Pakistan Army, nurtured, trained and financed by it need to be crippled by India militarily, whatever the cost. The international community is disgusted with States using Islamic Jihadi terrorism as an instrument of state policy. No global condemnation of India awaits here if and when India resorts to nip terrorism in its bud.

In this venture force multiplication can be achieved by enlisting support of Pakistan’s neighbouring Islamic states similarly affected by Pakistan terrorist attacks. In this case, diplomacy could have a major role in garnering such support to supplement the overall military containment of the Pakistan Army.

Pakistan’s domestic scene is in disarray but unlike in the past there are no strong domestic calls for the Pakistan Army to intervene and take over the Government. Missed by the Indian strategic community and the Indian media were calls within Pakistan for restoration of ‘full democracy’ and massive civilian protest movements that first visibly surfaced back in 2007 and brought about end of General Musharraf’s rule.

Pakistan Army’s domestic image went into a steep nose-dive following liquidation by United States of Osama bin Laden in the heart of Pakistan Army’s most important garrison town. So far did the image go down within Pakistan that in the following Carps Commanders Conference the Pakistan Army made a call on the civilian government to arrest the public ridicule of the Pakistan Army.

The Pakistani masses longing for full democracy in Pakistan are an undeniable truth. Pakistan has an entirely new young generation unlike the post-Zia generation. This new Pakistani generation wants Pakistan to advance on the economic front and which they know is not possible until true democracy emerges in Pakistan and the Pakistan Army is made to submit to civilian rule. India’s efforts to promote such an upsurge should be a logical supplement to the overall containment of the Pakistan Army.

Twice in the last decade two SAAG Papers of mine specifically entitled “Pakistan’s Democracy is an Indian Security Imperative” examined these imperatives both at the Indian official level and the media levels.

Geopolitically, the global major powers expect that India should truly behave and act as an ‘Emerging Power’ having the guts and conviction to re-order its neighbourhood into a stable one. No scope of dithering exists for India under pressure from Indians who persist in believing that Pakistan can be brought around to peaceful relations with India. Such a proposition is only a fig-leaf for individuals seeking sojourns abroad, ostensibly for Track II events.

The brutal reality is that Pakistan Army cannot be brought around to discard its obsessive anti-Indian mindsets that lie at the core of Pakistan Army’s military confrontation with India. Pakistan Army has a vested corporate interest in prolonging Pakistan’s enmity with India, a strategic impulse that now resonates and synergises with China’s similar obsession.

In conclusion it needs to be highlighted that having exhausted all reasonable peaceful options with Pakistan which have consistently stood nullified by the obduracy of the Pakistan Army to impede any peace with India, the alternative for India now is to resort to “Military Containment of the Pakistan Army as an Inescapable Security Imperative” There are tides in the history of nations when nations are called upon by the inexorable march of geopolitics to resort to military containment of its military adversary for the longer good of peace and stability. That moment of truth has now arrived for India.

India’s Pragmatic Foreign Policy – OpEd

0
0

By Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi*

Though foreign policy of any country happens to be a well-planned and pre-calculated statement of its ideals and goals but their constant application some-times create challenges before the decision-maker due to occasional differences regarding them. It is in this context, the new Indian Prime Minister began his innings expressing his firm commitment to the proclaimed objectives of India’s foreign policy viz. peace, non-violence, non-alignment etc., founded by the architect and first Prime Minister of independent India, Late Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Notwithstanding its glorious decades after India’s independence, the global scenario after the end of Cold War witnessed a sea-change, with the USA moving from Super-Power role to become the first Hyper Power in the world- controlling even the ideas of people. Unfortunately the disintegration of the erstwhile USSR, at this time, made India opt for close relations with the US as an effective security-architecture against evolving Beijing-Islamabad axis. Thus India’s shift towards Washington for protection of its national interests was justified.

As India is a largest-successful and vibrant democracy having ahuge population consisting of world-class intellectuals and professionals, skilled labourers, booming economy, state of the art R&D facility, advanced industries, powerful army and also being a founder-member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)- known as the largest movement of humanity- it deserves to be recognised as an emerging global power and, consequently, be designated with a responsible role in all significant international and global forums, so that it may- while working in consonance with its ancient cultural ethos- contribute towards establishing peace, prosperity and security in the world, which today bears the brunt of macabre threats of terrorism and religious fundamentalism, besides several other explosive dangers.

India cannot occupy a permanent seat the United Nations Security Council and membership of other prominent groupings like G-8, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Nuclear Suppliers Groups (NSG) etc. without the US’ concurrence. India also needs American support for modern technology, latest armaments and other economic gains and also for exerting pressure on the global terror-outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad; Hijb-ul- Mujahideen; Haqqani terror-network; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and upon Pakistan’s exported cross-border terrorism too

Indeed, India is one of the worst sufferers of terrorism which had already lost two very promising prime ministers in the past. It has also suffered the worst terror attacks viz. Bombay Stock Exchange, 26/11 in Mumbai, Banglore Bakery attack, Delhi High Court etc., besides regular ongoing terror-strikes including burning of schools and fierce attacks on army and para-military base camps and residential villages in Jammu and Kashmir and innumerable cease-fire violations by Pakistan along LOC, particularly after India’s successful surgical strikes into the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). Hence, India needs a very strong and effective mechanism for its security against cross-border terrorism and global terrorism, which requires close monitoring and information-sharing regarding movement of terrorists and their future targets, in which cooperation by the US, Russia, England, France and Israel will definitely be very meaningful.

Though India under PM Modi acted enthusiastically for forging closer relations with America in economic, security and other important areas and made significant compromises in its principles with view to accommodate the American concerns, but the US had not always been quick to support India – perhaps for its own policy of by creating a working balance with Pakistan as well as China.

While foreign support is necessary, India will have to depend on its own strength and capability by what one would call as “muscular pragmatism”. Considering the prevailing challenges after India’s surgical strike, Islamabad appears hell-bent to enact a massive retaliation, and in this effort China’s full-fledged support to Pakistan is highly worrisome. Further, Beijing’s anti-Indian role was apparent in the recent BRICS summit in Goa where Beijing stalled India’s sincere efforts for elimination of terrorism, on the ground, that any country’s name should not be associated with terrorism and also that one must not forget the great sacrifices rendered by Islamabad in the global fight against terror.

Further, China blocked India’s efforts in the United Nations to name Maulana Masood Azhar as a terrorist and also expressed its ambivalence for India’s candidature for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, besides having already stalled India’s entry into NSG. Indeed, all these Sino-Pakistani overtures portend bad-omen for the peace and security of not only India but for the entire Indo-Pacific region wherein China is particularly interested to dominate the South China Sea into its maritime territory. China’s claims have already been rejected by International Court of Arbitration at the Hague.

Thus India, instead of meekly following the earlier policy of “strategic restraint”, has started asserting itself as a responsible power capable enough to protect its national security.

India’s earlier commitment for its self-imposed doctrine of non-alignment, while exercising freedom of action and independence of judgment, had served India well in the past and may do so in future. Yet for the present India’s response specially after the Uri attack is the best that can be done given India’s own responsibility in the region.

*Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi, Associate Professor, Political Science, M. D. P. G. College, Pratapgarh (UP)

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images