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

Trump Had GOP’s Second Worst Performance With Minority Voters – OpEd

0
0

By Mitchell Blatt*

Since Donald Trump was elected president, analysts have noted that Trump outperformed 2012 candidate Mitt Romney among minority voters. Some have used the datapoint to argue either that the Republican Party doesn’t need to make any changes to appeal to minorities, as was advised by a Republican leadership committee in the aftermath of 2012.

Missing from this analysis is that Romney had the worst performance among minorities voters of any Republican candidate since exit polls have been recorded. So Donald Trump only had the second worst performance among minorities.

For context, Bombs + Dollars looked at the exit poll data summarized by Cornell’s Roper Center since 1976 and added in the exit poll data from CNN for 2016 and graphed it.

The results show Trump earned the ninth lowest rate of black votes of any Republican candidate in the past 11 elections, the seventh lowest rate of Hispanic votes, and the sixth lowest rate of Asian-American votes in the past 7 elections (Asian vote wasn’t recorded prior to 1992).

img_7792The only two times the Republican candidate for president won less than the 8 percent of the African-American vote that Trump won were in 2008 and 2012, when Barack Obama, the first black president, ran as the Democrat. The Republicans did poorly among all minority groups in both 2008 and 2012, but even in 2008 McCain earned higher percentages of the Asian vote and Hispanic vote than did Trump, and Trump only barely beat Romney’s historically terrible showing. (Romney earned the lowest rate of Asian vote, second lowest rate of black vote, and eighth lowest rate of Hispanic vote.)

Before Obama, the GOP usually earned low double digits of the black vote (Reagan and Bush earned 9 percent one time each). Trump, with 8 percent of the black vote, earned less than any candidate since before Obama’s nomination.

GOP share of the African-American vote since 1976.

GOP share of the African-American vote since 1976.

Trump’s 29 percent of the Asian-American vote was only 2 points better than Romney’s historic low of 27 percent.

GOP Asian-American vote

GOP Asian-American vote

The Hispanic vote has been more variable. Trump easily beat Gerald Ford’s 18 percent in 1976 and Bob Dole’s 21 percent in 1996, but if he had matched George W. Bush’s performance, he would have won close to 2 million more votes, potentially winning the popular vote.

GOP Hispanic vote

GOP Hispanic vote

About the author:
*Mitchell Blatt moved to China in 2012, and since then he has traveled and written about politics and culture throughout Asia. A writer and journalist, based in China, he is the lead author of Panda Guides Hong Kong guidebook and a contributor to outlets including The Federalist, China.org.cn, The Daily Caller, and Vagabond Journey. Fluent in Chinese, he has lived and traveled in Asia for three years, blogging about his travels at ChinaTravelWriter.com. You can follow him on Twitter at @MitchBlatt.


India’s nuclear Deal With Japan Should Not Become Political Football – Analysis

0
0

By C Uday Bhaskar*

Two significant developments have taken place over the last week in the nuclear domain that will have a long-term bearing on India’s overall nuclear profile over the next decade and it will be instructive to see how these issues will be mediated in the current Indian political cauldron.

The two developments relate to Japan and China – but differently. The major punctuation relates to Prime Minister Narendra Modi having concluded a long-awaited civil nuclear agreement with Japan (November 11), though there are some tangled areas of interpretation on certain key clauses. And the second development pertains to India’s bid to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and China’s steadfast opposition to this aspiration. Beijing reiterated that, as regards the NSG meeting held in Vienna (when Modi was in Tokyo), being an NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) signatory is essential before considering membership. This in reality is a veto – since India cannot sign the NPT as a nuclear-weapon state – and renouncing nuclear weapon capability like many such states (including Japan) is not an option.

The conclusion of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (NCA) in Tokyo by Modi with his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe is particularly significant – both for its symbolism and its substantive implications. Japan has a very deep sensitivity as regards the nuclear issue and was firmly opposed to India’s nuclear tests of May 1998. However, the rapprochement between India and the USA in 2008, epitomized by the conclusion of the civilian nuclear agreement with Washington DC, and the exceptional status accorded to India by the NSG in September 2008 encouraged Tokyo to review its opposition to India’s nuclear aspirations. This progressive shift in Japan’s approach to India was enabled by the personal determination of Abe – and in many ways his resolve could be analogous to that of President George Bush who invested his personal political capital in squaring the nuclear nettle with India in the tumultuous 2005-08 period.

When India was negotiating with the USA in that tense phase over the nuclear agreement – one central determinant was India’s ‘right’ to conduct another nuclear test – should its supreme national interest warrant such a step. It was evident to domain experts that there was no way that even a determined Bush could have pushed through any template that did not satisfy his critics – in the US Congress and among nuclear ‘ayatollahs’ (opposed to any modus vivendi with India).

Domestic political compulsions pushed the ‘deal’ with the USA to the very brink and finally some deft legislation (the Hyde Act in the US Congress) and adroit drafting consensus by the two principal negotiators allowed the civil nuclear agreement with the USA to be realized – but it literally came down to the wire. At the very last stage more assurances were sought from India that it would continue its ‘restraint’ and then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee made a formal statement to this effect on September 5, 2008. Two days later, on September 7, India received the NSG waiver it had sought and a long period of nuclear isolation and intimidation ended.

Venal political opposition to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh within his own party – and to the UPA initiative by the BJP and the Left parties – almost torpedoed what can be described as the MOST significant national interest enabler in the nuclear domain. It ended India’s ostracism. The Bush-Singh resolve ensured the according of exceptional status to India by the NSG despite the fact that India was and is a non-signatory to the NPT, and that it had acquired nuclear weapons.

At the time many experts applauded India for its tenacity and negotiating acumen and an Israeli interlocutor was puzzled. I recall the phrase : “Israel would give its right arm for such a deal and yet your opposition parties are opposing this. Why?”

Regrettably, a zero-sum template has permeated Indian political conduct even on matters pertaining to national security and this is most evident in the nuclear domain. The Congress could not accept that a BJP- led government with Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the helm had taken the decision to cross the nuclear Rubicon. Acquiring nuclear weapons was castigated by the Congress – when in the opposition – and this despite the fact that Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao had in 1995 considered carrying out a nuclear test.

The tables were turned when the Congress formed the UPA government in 2004 and the BJP-led opposition keel-hauled Manmohan Singh for entering into a civilian nuclear agreement with the USA in July 2005 . Any number of hurdles – imagined and exaggerated – were introduced into the domestic political cauldron and the negotiators and their political principals on both sides (India and the USA) must be commended for staying the course til late 2008.

But the deeper political understanding was that India would remain committed to its self-imposed moratorium as regards nuclear testing – first outlined by Vajpayee in 1998. This unwavering fidelity to nuclear restraint accorded India an intangible virtue index and this came to the fore in the Kargil war of 1999 with Pakistan. India was acknowledged as a responsible and virtuous nuclear power.

Today the agreement with Japan is caught in an opaque zone of interpretative nuance – about nuclear testing. Stock phrases like sovereign right being trampled are being heard – and suggestions made that India is conceding more to Japan in 2016 than it had to the USA in 2008. This kind of sophistry is undesirable and imprudent.

India’s exceptional status in the nuclear domain is predicated on its restraint and adherence to the self-imposed moratorium that goes back to 1998. Yes, India can claim the ‘right’ to test – should an exigency of grave import necessitate such a step. But this step will automatically impose certain costs on India – and objective cost-benefit analysis will be called for.

In the interim, the political discourse in India should not distort the orientation adopted by previous governments and seek any kind of Faustian bargain for short-term political dividends. India should not renege on solemn commitments made by clever sleight of word to assuage domestic sentiment. The agreement with Japan should be upheld and interpreted in a manner that will burnish India’s virtue cum rectitude index.

*C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society of Policy Studies, New Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

A Trump Presidency: Mixed Signals And Troubling Implications – OpEd

0
0

By Bhaswati Mukherjee*

On November 9 the unthinkable happened after the most polarised US election in US history. With the so-called ‘swing states’ – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania -choosing Trump, the so-called ‘Clinton Firewall’ was breached and, despite a lower share of the popular vote, Trump convincingly won the presidency. His victory divided USA and impacted global public opinion including among US allies. Protests continue in California and a petition calling on the US Electoral College to dump Trump and select Hillary Clinton as president, based on the larger share of popular votes she won, has already picked up 3.2 million signatures. Some ugly racist incidents have already occurred in the US and one can expect the extreme right to try to exploit this victory. Trump has started backing away from his more extreme position such as repealing Obamacare, putting “crooked Hillary” behind bars, and walking out of trade pacts and international agreements to which US is a party, including the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

What are the implications for India and the bilateral relationship? Much would depend on his choice of Secretary of State for Foreign Relations and whether his governance style would be decentralised with the President depending on a team of dedicated technocrats. This would be the best option, given his ignorance on global and strategic issues. Early trends are not encouraging. His transition team includes four members of his family as well as corporate consultants and lobbyists with little knowledge of global challenges challenging US interests worldwide.

Trump’s approach to India has been contradictory with much doublespeak. During the final presidential debate he referred positively to India, its high growth rates and spoke of his business relationships here. At an Indian American rally in New Jersey in October, in front of a large gathering of Indian media, he originally described himself as an admirer of “Hindus”. When the anchor pointed out that all Indians were not Hindus, he side-stepped and spoke of being a big fan of India.

Early in the campaign, he complained of outsourcing, about jobs being “shipped out” to India and alleged misuse of H1B visas. He voiced strong criticism of call centres being outsourced to India and Indians. After he used a false Indian accent to mock Indian call-centre workers, he sought to wriggle out of it by clarifying that India was a great place and his anger was not against India but against outsourcing. Whether this is feasible or possible remains to be seen but it has troubling implications for our bilateral relationship.

His statements on Pakistan have been equally ambiguous with hints that he would seek help from India and other nations to address the “problem” of what he described as a “semi-unstable” nuclear-armed Pakistan. In an early interview he said: “The problem with Pakistan, where they have nuclear weapons — which is a real problem. Pakistan is semi-unstable. We don’t want to see total instability.” It is not clear whether as President this would translate into a reversal of US policy towards Pakistan. Possibly not, since even Trump, as President, would need to respect the fine line defining US foreign policy based on American national interests. His policy on Afghanistan is equally unclear with hints that he would cut down on US commitments overseas. This would have direct implications on our peace and security with the increased threat of terrorist attacks in case of a premature US withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is unclear at this moment whether a Trump presidency would strongly support India’s Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) membership and its candidature for permanent membership to the Security Council and strengthen the Indo-US Strategic Partnership which was also based on common concerns regarding the rise of China.

Trump has hinted that in order to make “America great again” he would follow a policy of splendid isolation, such as the one US followed at the beginning of the 20th century. In that event, not only would it negatively impact US strategic interests worldwide and encourage fundamentalism but it would also encourage China to be become the pre-eminent power in Asia which would be highly detrimental to India. Given his insistence that Europe should pay the US for military protection and increase their funding to NATO, several European commentators are questioning whether his ‘America first’ policy would result in the end of the West as the world has known after World War II. His earlier positive pronouncements about President Vladimir Putin has increased European fears about the impact of a new détente between USA and the Russian Federation adversely impacting European and European Union strategic interests.

In the global arena, his victory is being interpreted as the rejection of globalisation. After Brexit there are crucial elections coming up in France and Germany and rise of ultra-right wing parties in many parts of Europe. There are now fear that Marie Le Pen, President of the National Front, would easily make it to the second round of the French presidential election. In Germany, Frauke Petry is the leader of the right-wing Alternative for Germany who is radically opposed to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration and refugee policy and of ‘Islamification’ of Germany.

Even after Ronald Reagan’s election, the national and international mood had not been so grim or pessimistic. The day after the election, the leading newspaper in France, Le Monde, characterised the result in its front page as “a clown has been elected in the USA”. The flawed American electoral system which allows a president to be elected after he loses the popular vote to his contender has resulted in an inexperienced but overconfident maverick being elected to this exalted post.

With his finger on the nuclear button, the world, including the US’ principal allies in Europe, would have to treat him with more respect than they presently do. India would need to watch and wait what a Trump presidency could do for a carefully crafted India-US strategic relationship. Only history and posterity can judge the result. One can only hope for the best.

*Bhaswati Mukherjee is a former Indian ambassador. She can be contacted at rustytota@gmail.com

Swiss Air Force Fighter Jets Escort Russian Aircraft

0
0

The Russian Embassy to Switzerland demanded an official explanation on Saturday for why the Swiss Air Force dispatched three fighter jets to escort a Russian government aircraft.

The official Russian passenger Ilyushin Il-96 aircraft was carrying journalists to cover the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economic summit, held in Lima, Peru, when three military jets suddenly appeared to accompany it while it flew through Swiss airspace.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was scheduled to take part in the South American-based event, but he was not aboard the aircraft in question.

The embassy said in a statement posted on Twitter that it was bewildered by the military escort on Friday and wanted some clarification from Swiss officials. The tweet includes a photo of a fighter jet off the wing of a Russian plane in Swiss air space.

The Russian foreign ministry, in a statement on Twitter, also said it was seeking answers.

Jürg Nussbaum, a spokesman for the Swiss Air Force, said the escort and inspection of the Russian aircraft essentially was a routine maneuver by the Air Force’s FA/18 combat aircraft “as is often done during the flying of foreign state aircraft”, Swiss tabloid Blick reported.

Andrey Kolesnikov, editor-in-chief of the Russian Pioneer magazine, described the experience in a Facebook post. “We are flying to Peru, to APEC CEO summit […] Flying through Switzerland. At some point, the plane with the delegation and the journalists is blocked from three sides by three fighter jets. […] These are fighter jets of the Swiss Air Force.”

He also expressed resentment that the Swiss fighters flew close enough to be what he considered a threat to the flight; he said he could see the pilot’s faces and the aircraft ID numbers.

Another journalist, Dmitry Smirnov, posted a video of the incident on Facebook and wondered whether it was a dangerous incident.

Later, he posted several updates. The Russian plane had landed at a military base in Lisbon, Portugal, he said, and after refueling, it was clear that something was wrong with the engine.

Eventually, he showed a photo of the end of the journey: the journalists were put in a new plane, which landed on the tarmac in Lima.

In July, two fighter jets of the Swiss air force intercepted an Israeli El Al airliner near Schaffhausen due to an anonymous bomb threat, authorities said.

The F/A 18 jets had to break the sound barrier while reacting quickly to catch the airliner on a flight that originated from New York’s John F Kennedy airport in the United States, according to Schaffhausen police and Skyguide, the Swiss-based air traffic controllers.

The airliner later landed safely and on schedule at midday in Tel Aviv, Israeli media reported. No bomb was found.

Why Women Matter For Effective Climate Change Solutions – Analysis

0
0

By Fabíola Ortiz

Establishing a clear path forward and including women and girls in global efforts on climate change were some of the biggest challenges the delegations and non-state actors faced at the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference in Marrakech.

Formally known as the Twenty-Second Conference of Parties (COP22), the conference had a special day (November 14) for discussing exclusively gender issues within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“Study after study has shown that women are the most vulnerable to climate change and that’s why there is a need for strong leadership on this issue,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa.

“We need to prioritise women’s demands and offer the proper responses to climate change,” Mariam Diallo-Dramé, President of the Association of Women Leaders and Sustainable Development (AFLED) told IDN. AFLED is based in Bamako, Mali, and works to empower girls and young women between the ages of 15 and 35.

Diallo-Dramé explained that because adaptation to climate change is inextricably related to access to education, climate adaptation must therefore also envision a holistic solution of educating women and sending girls to school. “We work to empower girls’ citizenship and to involve them in decision-making, we encourage them to be part of political scenario in Mali,” she said.

Women in the Sahel region are responsible for the well-being of the family, often having to walk long distances to fetch water and food on unsafe roads, she noted, adding that “resources are rare in the Sahara region, and most of the time men leave women to farm. They have their own traditional methods for adaptation, but it is not enough, they need help.”

As an African voice advocating for gender issues to be included in the climate talks in Marrakech, Diallo-Dramé regretted that this issue was not being properly addressed in the negotiations.

“I have the feeling that in those high-level meetings we, African women from the Sahel, are going to stay behind because we are not there at the table. We are not able to address the gender issue in our countries, governments don’t understand, all legislation regarding gender and human rights is just on paper and is not being implemented. When you talk about climate justice it is going to be for the West and not for us,” she said.

For the last two weeks at COP22 (November 7-18, 2016), country delegations negotiated implementation of the new global agreement to tackle climate change adopted in Paris in 2015. The Paris Agreement embraces a language sensitive to gender equality and recognises Parties’ responsibility to respect and promote human rights obligations through climate change action calling for “gender-responsive adaptation measures and capacity-building activities”.

In Marrakech, Parties were expected to carry on with the Lima Work Programme on Gender – which is a two-year work programme on gender launched at COP20 in 2014. Civil society groups had strongly advocated a clear plan of action on gender within the UNFCCC and financial support for the activities under the Lima Work Programme.

“We start from the point that we are not victims, we are advancing now on the discourse of empowerment,” Maité Rodríguez Blandón, coordinator for the Guatemala Foundation in the Central American country, told IDN.

“Climate resilience will come from empowering women in their communities. Women are very well organised at the local level and they know their role. We focus on changing the perception from being a victim to becoming a key actor and protagonist for change.” Blandón leads the Women and Peace Network in Central America with grassroots women’s organisations from Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Honduras. Her work has focused on grassroots women’s movements struggling for land rights, women’s rights and safer cities for women over the past decade.She said that there was too much dialogue and not enough action at COP22.

“We have seen an increasing participation of indigenous and women’s groups that used to be unthinkable in the past. The Lima Work Programme on Gender was very short and you don’t see the mention of women empowerment in the text. It has evolved with no doubt, we have achieved higher levels of conscious, but we don’t want to be at the periphery. We need to see more concrete actions”, she stressed.

Engaging indigenous women’s voices has also been a concern for Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. “Indigenous women have a very important role because they are the ones who are really involved in subsistence low-carbon food production. They are the ones who take care of the environment within their territories. Their role is to really ensure that the biodiversity is sustained,” she told IDN.

Tauli-Corpuz believes that COP22 did have a strong gender focus.“Women are here to make sure that their rights will also be addressed in the decisions being reached. Indigenous women are the strong allies for climate change solutions, they should be at the core of the discussions,” she said.

Civil society organisations and non-state actors had a crucial role in COP22, Driss El Yazami, Head of the Civil Society Team at the conference and President of the National Human Rights Council of Morocco, told IDN.

“Women’s groups from several countries gathered here to lay the first foundations of an African Network of Women for Climate Justice. Reaching the Paris Agreement was itself influenced by civil society and non-state actors. The Paris Agreement recognises the important engagement of the various actors, including non-governmental organisations,” she added.

Around 1,500 local and regional leaders representing more than 780 local and regional governments from 114 countries gathered in Marrakech and launched a roadmap for action to start a global campaign to localise climate finance in 2017 and implement a ‘Global Action Framework for Localising Climate Finance’ by 2020.

Advent Of Trumpism And What It Portends – Analysis

0
0

US President Barack Obama’s often spoken “Obama Doctrine” is about to be upended by the new thought on the block – Trumpism.

In his eight years as the most powerful leader on earth, Obama has consistently resisted the idea of armed intervention unless circumstances threaten the very security of the United States. He has stood steadfast by his policy even in the face of opposition from the hawks in his own team, and held that diplomacy and negotiations must serve as the bulwark of international relations. The use of armed force has to be the last resort and only in the face of a direct and existential threat.

In the emanating debate, Obama has been harshly criticized, especially in the case of Syria, where humanitarian concerns and the genocide perpetrated by the Assad regime has turned world opinion against him including European allies of the US.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, admitted after resigning office in 2012 that the vacuum created by the failure of the US to produce a plausible response (using rebel factions) in Syria, was filled by the Islamic State jihadists. In his perception the President felt the only credible threats to the US were Al Qaeda, the irresolute Israel-Palestine question and a nuclear Iran. Putting at risk his own credibility and the power of his office, he encouraged the deal with Iran to ensure a more benign foe than an out rightly belligerent one. In more than one instance he has exhibited his reticence in getting embroiled in more Middle East wars, which according to him more often than not, serve to exploit US muscle for the sectarian gains of Arab allies.

President Obama’s focus on Asia was articulated by Hillary Clinton when she spoke of the Asia Pivot. However critics have pointed to the lack of a suitable supportive action after the articulation of a policy thought that has only served to weaken the American position in the region. To his credit Obama saw the Chinese and the Russian equations in the harsh lens of realism, and proceeded to deal with them as such.

In the aftermath of the US presidential election and its apparently disastrous result many theories have been extended to explain Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the White House. Trumpism, as the term goes, is hard put to explain by way of normal electoral politics or the range of policy option oscillations that were witnessed during Trump’s campaigning. In what could only be termed as gutter level politics and a no- holds barred contest, he has managed to emerge the winner, and it is now up to myriad analyses to justify this twist in the tale.

In his 1960 book, Constitution of Liberty, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek marked the transition from conservatism to neo-liberalism. He rejected the ideas of political freedom, equality and universal rights, and his sole focus remained the absolute freedom from coercion, with competition as a defining axiom in human relations. Since any impediment in the form of regulations, taxes or state provisioning found itself counted as counter productive, his theories found sympathetic audience in the form of millionaires on both sides of the Atlantic willing to fund its expansion by way of lobbying vociferously in government circles.

This theory soon entrenched itself in the form of various adaptations such as Thatcherism and Reaganism and saw the paradigm shift from social democracy to a fresh belief and assurance in the form of neo-liberalism. Similarly, alterations of the same theme were employed by successive leaders both in the US and UK, having no substantial political thought of their own.

In that, and enigmatically, lies the explanation of Trump’s advance — it is the very lack of political alternatives that he has cashed in, and indeed he is a perfect example of the ‘independent’ postulated by Hayek. Most have given up trying to understand as to how a man so devoid of moral constraints, who has thrived simply on inherited wealth and repeatedly lost what he sought to create, gross beyond reason in his political conduct, could still ascend to the highest office in the US and in fact the world.

More importantly and as the specter of a Trump Presidency grows, analysts across the globe are scrambling to figure out what his foreign policy is likely to be and how it would affect them. Contrary to the realism exercised by Obama, will Trump tend toward an isolationist approach, or will his be an era of naked self interest cloaked in the garb of liberal interventionism? Or, and albeit without too many takers for it, will he stand by existing international norms and therefore strengthen multilateralism? The problem faced by most analysts is the same; ‘The Donald’ has made so many contradictory statements and adopted such widely oscillating stances that Trump has managed to stump everyone as to what is coming.

In strategic circles today, there exist a manifest confusion as to what Trump the President is going to do. This is compounded by the sheer inadequacy of his transition team, most of whom are stark novices on issues of governance, policy and international intrigue. To that end, and much to the relief of strategists, an odd Reince Priebus or Michael Flynn seem as the saving grace in the otherwise maddening amalgamation. They do agree on certain precepts though. That there is chaos in the world, more so because it is governed by varying yardsticks and discordant principles. That there is an emergent requirement to pare down chaos in key regions in the world. That there is an incessant demand for a more comprehensible and intelligible world order. So then what, if anything is Trumpism going to do about it? Some of the more sane voices in the Trump camp have also scrambled – scrambled to put some amount of meaning in to what their presidential candidate made an utter hash of in the run up to the elections.

If one were to go by what Trump said during his campaign, he is unlikely to accept the deterioration of the US economy for reasons of foreign policy. Only that much seems clear. He has repeatedly stressed upon the inadequate contribution of most key US allies in maintaining the security status quo across the globe. In Europe, it is the NATO allies. In east Asia, Japan and South Korea seem to have not done enough of their share.

With a recalcitrant and belligerent Russia in the east, NATO is left wondering what the new US stance is going to be. Those who put their money on the humanitarian crisis fomented by the Assad regime in Syria and then propped up by Russia, it is a question whether the US will now support them on these concerns, and therefore in an armed intervention in the war? Trump’s statements about Putin have left key allies such as UK, Germany and France confused about what the equation is likely to be in times to come.

Similarly the far east seems a potential trouble spot with the Chinese dragon flexing its biceps. This leaves Japan and South Korea wondering what their courses of action are going to be. In the eventuality that the US does rescind its own responsibility in these areas, the most obvious deduction is steep militarization in these zones. A host of other countries who have started to tilt toward the US such as Vietnam, India and Myanmar have expressed uncertainty. The example of the Philippines is being touted as the likely outcome if the US fails to stand by its commitments in the region.

Undoing some of the damage done by the fickle Mr Trump, two of his key policy advisors, Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro have sought to word succinctly what Trumpism would mean. They outline two tenets of his (likely) foreign policy, one that the US will no longer sacrifice its economic interests on the altar of foreign policy, and two, that the US will focus on peace through strength.

As such, some of the key alliances of the US may be asked to increase their share in sustaining the presence of US troops. This will invariably result in rubbing some of them the wrong way. However if those allies were to look at things pragmatically, it may be a better idea to increase percentage of GDP spends, rather than look at long term and expenditure heavy militarization.

The principle would be true both for NATO and South Asia. Coupled with Trump’s plan to build up the US Navy from 274 ships at present to 350 ships, an increase in spending would see a much more secure region. At the same time it would continue to drive home the message of the US as the traditional guarantor of a liberal world order. The allies could feel reassured of the commitment of the US, while the foes would find it hard to scale up their presence under the pressure that would be brought to bear on them.

Again based on the way the Trump team seems to be shaping up, where the first concern was of novices trying to deal with issues probably beyond their comprehension or capabilities, the second concern holds as much weight. This concern is to do with the known views of the few experienced people he has picked up.

Inside the US it is a matter of how badly the very principles on which the US has made its position in the free world are likely to get mauled. Whether it is an Attorney General who is deemed too racist for the job, or or a Chief Strategist who is an alleged white supremacist, and possibly a front for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, these people worry the nation which comprises a sizeable proportion of Asians, Hispanics, African- Americans and Jews. The level of indignation is evident from the number of Republicans who have openly opposed such appointments. Similarly, a National Security Advisor who is known for very stringent anti-Muslim views augurs ill for relations with the Muslim world. The equation is further compounded by the turmoil that the Muslim world is witnessing, and that many of the countries are allies of the US from an earlier dispensation.

During the campaign Trump has repeatedly reminded people of his business acumen, and that he intends to use the same to rid America of her economic woes. Without entering in to the discussion of his business acumen, which is questionable at best, some of the more alarming issues emanate from his dislike for immigrant communities which form the backbone of the American work force. If he were to indeed insist on American jobs for Americans, firstly, would they be up to the task?

The fact that immigrant communities have filled positions in the work force is fairly indicative of the average American standard of education. Moreover the Americans may never be able to produce the same resilience exhibited by these communities.

Secondly, what of the huge populations of immigrants living in the US. Trump has denounced Trade Deals which according to him are disadvantageous to the US, such as the NAFTA or TPP, or even allowing China’s entry in to the WTO. How he intends to tackle these is still not clear. In either case, he has been voted to power on promises of restoring the supremacy of the white American, but his modus is not clear in any lucid form. If fans of Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy’s hero in an entire series) were to recall, stringent trade measures forced the other guys so far against a wall that they lashed out resulting in a war. In a globalized economy that scenario is quite plausible in today’s times. However, this is not fiction, and Trump is definitely not Ryan.

The United States will witness some sea changes from the realism exercised by President Obama to (possibly?) a liberal interventionism based on naked self interest by Trump. As the inauguration draws closer, the transition will be clearer. One thing is, however, crystal clear, the world is going to be a very different place than we know today.

Obama Presidency: A Mixed Legacy – Analysis

0
0

By Md. Afroz*

The Obama administration has successfully completed its second term in the White House. These two terms in office were never easy for President Barack Obama. He inherited two long costly and unsuccessful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a more radicalised and hostile anti-American world, a weakening economy and troubled domestic politics.

Unlike his predecessor, Obama came to the White House with promises of ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rebuilding the American economy and guaranteed social justice to the minorities.

The first elected Black President of the US created high expectations among the minorities and other marginalised classes but the result turned to be opposite. The obstructionist attitude of Congress also placed hurdles in front of many of his policies.

The early days of Obama’s tenure witnessed one of the worst economic crises in the history of the US since 1929. The collapse of the stock market, crisis in the area of housing, financial and industrial sectors broke the morale of the government. Unemployment rates soared sky-high. Many believe it was also one of the main reasons for the election of Democrats in the White House.

Obama initiated many measures and recovery plans to curb the growing recession and debt crisis. He injected around $800 billion into the various sectors to rescue the American economy from the verge of collapse.

Federal assistance extensively to the car or motor industry protected many jobs in the United States. The symbol of capitalist might and US industrial power General Motors was also on the verge of bankruptcy. The Obama administration nationalised (partially) the General Motors and saved thousands of jobs of fellow Americans. Gradually, Obama brought the American economy back on its feet.

Another major initiative by his administration was to provide medical insurance to the 20 million American citizens. Despite strong opposition from the Republicans, he successfully implemented the Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare”. It was intended to improve health insurance quality and affordability for the deprived sections of American society.

Obama also implemented many provisions of Dream Act, especially related to children and youngsters and stopped deportation of many undocumented individuals.

During his first term in office, Obama cared very little about gay community or same-sex marriages issues, but as he geared up for re-election in 2012, he came out in support of same-sex marriage. When the Supreme Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, he welcomed it by calling it “a victory for America”.

In terms of failures, he failed to put a legal cap on American gun culture. The strongest American lobby National Rifle Association defeated all the measures initiated by the government to curb the proliferation of arms.

He also failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised to his voters. Surprisingly, during his tenure, racial attacks reached the highest in recent past. Many black American took to the streets against the racial violence and atrocities against the other minorities. Obama failed to provide a sense of security to the minorities.

On the foreign policy level also, the Obama administration has had mixed experiences. Obama came to office with the promise of ending the two most expensive wars of American history, Iraq and Afghanistan.

He ended the wars but without any proper solution which resulted in catastrophe, especially in Iraq. Continued drone attacks on civilian targets, in AF-PAK region, brought international criticism and cast doubt on his government’s intention to wage War on Terror.

His Cairo speech on US-Muslim relations in 2009 was intended to bring confidence in the Muslim world but it evaporated soon. Obama’s response to Arab Spring was very inconsistent and confusing. He abandoned one of the best US allies, Hosni Muabarak of Egypt, during the revolution, ignored Islamist President Mohamed Morsi and remained silent over the military coup of army chief General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

In Libya, the US actively participated in NATO-led military actions against the Muammar Gaddafi regime.

The situation became worse than ever and further strengthened the extremist forces providing them with fertile ground to breed.

During the early days of the Syrian uprising, Obama remained aloof. His support to the armed opposition created a very confusing situation. Inappropriate response to the Syrian crisis created a monster like ISIS or Islamic State.

An historical initiative by Obama was to end the more than three-decade-long international isolation of Iran by signing a nuclear deal through a bilateral agreement which included P5+1 members (permanent UN members + Germany).

He also re-established relations with Cuba and visited Havana, for the first time by any US president since 1928.

Relations with Israel remained unpleasant due to his support to normalisation of US-Iranian ties. The two had very substantive differences over the Palestinian issue, settlements in West Bank etc. although Obama signed military aid for 10 years totalling $3.8 billion per year to Israel.

Obama failed to control the Russian aggression of Ukraine over the Crimean issue. It created uncertainty among the European countries over the reliability of the US for European security. Relations with Russia remained hostile throughout his tenure in the White House.

The Chinese aggression in South China Sea continued. US allies in Asia also began to have less faith in the US to safeguard their territorial security. Japan started looking for other alternatives, including raising a national army.

Overall, the Obama presidency remained very difficult and witnessed many significant changes around the globe.

America’s limited military action in Pakistan to eliminate Osama bin Laden boosted the morale of American citizens but soon the Islamic State emerged and threatened lives in America and Europe.

The United States will continue to struggle with the issues of terrorism, inflation and domestic turbulence in the near future. The challenge for the new government is to analyse the failure of the Obama regime on both domestic and foreign level and continue to work where it left.

*Md. Afroz is a research scholar of International Relations at the Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Earlier, he was a South Asia Foundation Fellow at Pondicherry University. He can be reached at afrozkhanjnu@gmail.com

Ron Paul Unveils List Of Leading American Fake News Personalities – OpEd

0
0

Former congressman Ron Paul revealed a list of “fake news” journalists he claims are responsible for “bogus wars” and lies about Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the election. Journalists from CNN, the New York Times, and the Guardian are included.

“This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars,” according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Paul claims the list is sourced and “holds a lot more water” than a list previously released by Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul’s website as “a leftist feminist professor.”

“These are the news sources that told us ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'” he said. “They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that ‘The economy is in great shape!'”

Paul’s list includes the full names of the “fake news” journalists as well as the publications they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from. In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the exact sources of the list unknown.

CNN is Paul’s biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being “totally wrong” on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as “failing.”

The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election, with a surge in new subscriptions.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump.

Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely with Clinton’s campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.

So-called ‘fake news’ has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.

Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting third parties with filtering the news.


Ron Paul Should Be True And Essential Choice For US Secretary Of State – OpEd

0
0

By Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word “Statesman” as “a usually wise, skilled, and respected government leader.” There can be no doubt that Ron Paul, hero of the Libertarian movement and follower of Thomas Jefferson, is at once unusually wise, skilled and respected throughout all of the world.

The dictionary goes on to further break the term down as “one versed in the principles or art of government; especially one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies.”

Ron Paul is also equally well-versed in this regard, having had a career in the US House of Representatives spanning nearly 40 years.

Paul is also a Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, and has been an active writer, publishing on the topics of political and economic theory, as well as publicizing the ideas of economists of the Austrian School such as Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises during his political campaigns.

Paul has written many books on Austrian economics and classical liberal philosophy, beginning with The Case for Gold (1982) and including A Foreign Policy of Freedom (2007), Pillars of Prosperity (2008), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), End the Fed (2009) and Liberty Defined (2011).

While a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read other publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.

He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics.

When President Richard Nixon “closed the gold window” by ending American participation in the Bretton Woods System, thus ending the U.S. dollar’s loose association with gold on August 15, 1971, Paul decided to enter politics and became a Republican candidate for the United States Congress.

Wikipedia describes a statesman alternatively as “usually a politician, diplomat or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career at the national or international level.”

The Statesman (Greek – Politikos), also known by its Latin title, Politicus, is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato.

The text describes a conversation between Socrates, the mathematician Theodorus, another person named Socrates (referred to as “Young Socrates”), and an unnamed philosopher from Elea referred to as “the Stranger” (Xénos).

It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at a definition of “statesman,” as opposed to “sophist” or “philosopher” and is presented as following the action of the Sophist.

According to John M. Cooper in the seminal treatise “Introduction to Politikos,” Cooper and Hutchinson (1997), the dialogue’s intention was to clarify that, to rule or have political power, called for a “specialized knowledge.”

The statesman was one who possesses this special knowledge of how to rule justly and well and to have the best interests of the citizens at heart.

In each and every thing that Ron Paul has ever said, or done, in his career both inside and outside of government service, he has always, without fail or missing a beat, acted at all times both “justly,” avoiding war and conflict, and while “having the best interests of the citizens at heart.”

His nemesis enemies have been the warmongering Neo-Conservatives, who have consistently misused the good will and heavy coffers of the US Treasury owned by its hard working industrious American taxpayers to conquer, destroy, invade, rape, pillage and extort other nations around the world, only for the benefit of its Imperial/Plutocrat Deep State Elite.

Paul has been described as a conservative and libertarian.

According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002, and is the most conservative of the candidates that had sought the 2012 Republican nomination for president, on a scale primarily measuring positions on the role of government in managing the economy – not positions on social issues or foreign policy matters.

Other analyses, in which key votes on domestic social issues and foreign policy factor more heavily, have judged Paul much more moderate.

The National Journal, for instance, rated Paul only the 145th most conservative member of the House of Representatives (out of 435) based on votes cast in 2010.

The foundation of Paul’s political philosophy is the conviction that “the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else.”

He has been nicknamed “Dr. No,” reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”

The “statesman” is presented that politics should be run by this “specialized knowledge,” or gnosis.

Those that rule merely give the appearance of such knowledge, but in the end are really sophists or imitators.

The Neo-Cons are great examples of “rulers,” and not “statesmen.”

Paul’s foreign policy of nonintervention made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty, completely in line with President-Elect Donald Trump’s philosophy.

The Secretary of State is a senior official of the federal government of the United States of America heading the U.S. Department of State, principally concerned with foreign policy and is considered to be the U.S. government’s equivalent of a Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Secretary of State is appointed by the President of the United States and is confirmed by the United States Senate.

The first American Secretary of State was Thomas Jefferson, who took office in March 22, 1790, and left office in December 31, 1793.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson lived and governed by one of his most notable statements of ““Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations…entangling alliances with none” that he delivered at his inaugural address on March 4, 1801.

Ron Paul has consistently embodied and legislated with this fundamental precept, guiding his every word and act for as long as anyone can remember during his entire career, both public an private.

There has never been a better analysis and breakdown of the terms “peace,’ “commerce,” honest friendship,” and “entangling alliances with none” than that appearing in Laurence M. Vance’s “Jeffersonian Principles” dated September 1, 2004 and appearing at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/laurence-m-vance/peace-commerce-and-honest-friendship/

This methodical breakdown, using quotations from Thomas Jefferson’s and other notables of politics and literature, clearly reveals that the best candidate and who typifies the true and essential nature for United States Secretary of State, is none other than Ron Paul.

The Secretary of State, along with the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General are generally regarded as the four most important Cabinet members because of the importance of their respective departments.

Secretary of State is a Level I position in the Executive Schedule and thus earns the salary prescribed for that level.

The current Secretary of State is 2004 presidential nominee and former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 68th person to hold the office since its creation in 1789.

The specific duties of the Secretary of State include:

(1) Organizes and supervises the whole community United States Department of State and the United States Foreign Service; (2) Advises the President on matters relating to U.S. foreign policy, including the appointment of diplomatic representatives to other nations, and on the acceptance or dismissal of representatives from other nations; (3) Participates in high-level negotiations with other countries, either bilaterally or as part of an international conference or organization, or appoints representatives to do so – this includes the negotiation of international treaties and other agreements; (4) Responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas; (5) Providing information and services to U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad, including providing credentials in the form of passports and visas; (6) Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries; (7) Supervises the United States immigration policy abroad; and (8) Communicates issues relating the United States foreign policy to Congress and to U.S. citizens.

The original duties of the Secretary of State include some domestic duties, such as:

(1) Receipt, publication, distribution, and preservation of the laws of the United States; (2) Preparation, sealing, and recording of the commissions of Presidential appointees; (3) Preparation and authentication of copies of records and authentication of copies under the Department’s seal; (4) Custody of the Great Seal of the United States; and (5) Custody of the records of the former Secretary of the Continental Congress, except for those of the Treasury and War Departments.

As the highest-ranking member of the cabinet, the Secretary of State is the third-highest official of the executive branch of the Federal Government of the United States, after the President and Vice President and is fourth in line to succeed the Presidency, coming after the Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

Six Secretaries of State have gone on to be elected President.

Others, including John Kerry, William Seward, Henry Clay and Hillary Clinton have been unsuccessful presidential candidates, either before or after their term of office as Secretary of State.

Former Secretaries of State retain the right to add the title “Secretary” to their surnames.

As the head of the United States Foreign Service, the Secretary of State is responsible for management of the diplomatic service of the United States.

The foreign service employs about 12,000 people domestically and internationally, and supports 265 United States diplomatic missions around the world, including ambassadors to various nations.

The nature of the position means that Secretaries of State engage in travel around the world.

The record for most countries visited in a secretary’s tenure is 112, by Hillary Clinton.

Second is Madeleine Albright with 96.

The record for most air miles traveled in a secretary’s tenure is 1.06 million miles, by John Kerry.

Second is Rice’s 1.059 million miles and third is Clinton’s 956,733 miles.

When there is a vacancy in the office of Secretary of State, the duties are exercised either by another member of the cabinet, or, in more recent times, by a high-ranking official of the State Department until the President appoints, and the United States Senate confirms, a new Secretary.

In the Washington Post in an article by Philip Rucker November 19, 2016, recently declared in one of their headlines located at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mulls-a-secretary-of-state-clone-crusader-statesman-or-clean-slate/2016/11/18/59669270-acee-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html “Trump mulls a secretary of state: Clone, crusader, statesman or clean slate?”

Ironically enough they throw around names such as Rudolph W. Giuliani, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney, Bob Corker, but nowhere do they even mention the ultimate statesman, who meets all of the classic requirements, as Ron Paul.

This should be of no surprise considering that many would argue that the Washington Post, like the New York Times, is simply a mouthpiece of the Neo-Conservative movement of aggressive, war-mongering government style, beating, threatening and intimidating other nations, countries, and foreign leaders into submission (“Washington Post Editorial Board Goes Full Neocon,” by Spandan Chakrabarti of May 28, 2014 at http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2014/5/28/washington-post-goes-full-neocon or “The Washington Post: The Most Reckless Editorial Page in America” by James Carden and Jacob Heilbrunn of December 15, 2014 at http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-washington-post-the-most-reckless-editorial-page-america-11857).

Ron Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees.

He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft.

Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: “In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous ‘separation of church and state’ metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty.”

Sometime within the same month but much after the event of authorities executing a lock-down in sequence to the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Paul commented on the tactics used by governing forces into a harsh criticism that he has written as a “military-style occupation of an American city.”

It is time to return to the basics and foundations of what made this nation great, in line with President-Elect Donald Trump’s vision – and this means returning to what the Founding Fathers truly meant when they created these Cabinet Positions in the first place – and what better way to start than by installing a man into this position of Secretary of State than Ron Paul, who literally embodies the spirit and essence of the man who first held the position – Thomas Jefferson himself.

*Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq, Ranked amongst Top Attorneys in the United States by Newsweek Magazine in 2012 and 2013.

Source: This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Is ‘Defence-Alone’ Strategy Sufficient To Create Secure Cyberspace? – Analysis

0
0

By Madan Oberoi

Statistics on the registration and prosecution or conviction of cybercrime play a role in illuminating: The reporting of cybercrime, and the investigation of cybercrime in India.

The following evidence suggests that there was gross under-reporting of cybercrimes by victims and problems in investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes. The situation depicted by these statistics implies that cybercriminals can work with a confidence level ranging from 96% to 99% that they will never be punished for their crimes.

This points to the inefficacy of “defence-alone” strategy being advocated by many vendors of security products.screen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-01-20-pm

Evidence

As per reports published by CERT-IN and NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), the rate of prosecution and conviction of cybercrimes in India in 2015 was as low as 4.88 % and 1.78% (respectively) of the total number of cybersecurity incidents reported.

The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) under the Ministry of Electronics and IT, is the nodal agency responsible for handling cybersecurity incidents. CERT handles incidents related to spam, website defacements, website intrusion, phishing, malware propagation, malicious code and network scanning and probing. Interestingly the number of cybersecurity incidents handled by CERT in 2015 has reduced by 14.7%.screen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-02-03-pm

On the other hand, the number of cybercrime cases registered in India has increased considerably in 2015, by 20%. However prosecution of cybercrime in India still remains very low with only 5,425 cases being sent for prosecution in 2015. The percentage of cybercrimes ending in conviction in 2015 was as low as 1.78% of the reported or detected cybersecurity incidents.screen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-02-53-pm

screen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-03-30-pm

Inference

While there has been an increase in the number of cybercrime cases registered in 2015, the number (11,592) still indicates under-reporting of cybercrime cases to LEAs in India. Companies choose not to report cases as they fear loss of reputation; further companies and affected individuals do not have the confidence in the capabilities of LEAs. The percentage of cases being taken up for prosecution (46% of the total number of registered cases) suggests that capabilities to investigate the multi-jurisdictional cybercrime needs to be strengthened.screen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-04-01-pm

screen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-04-40-pmscreen-shot-2016-11-20-at-9-05-07-pmPoor prosecution and conviction rates fail to act as deterrents to cybercriminals. This means that in order to achieve the objective of secure cyberspace, exclusive focus of building defences in forms of anti-virus, firewalls, IDSs, etc. is not going to suffice. Credible deterrence needs to be created through successful prosecutions.

This clearly points to the need to combat these low prosecution and conviction rates of cybercrime through:

  1. Moving from a reactive approach to intelligence led proactive approach to combat cybercrime by law enforcement agencies in collaboration with stakeholders like private sector and academia.
  2. Capacity strengthening of law enforcement agencies to combat cybercrime through bridging the gaps in skillsets and infrastructure.
  3. Developing a platform for global coordination of intelligence and operations.
  4. Providing strategic and research support to law enforcement agencies to combat cybercrime.

The author is an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer presently deployed with INTERPOL as Director of its Global Cybercrime Programme. This post reflects the author’s personal views and not of INTERPOL or the Government of India.

Turkey: Where Are Imported Coal Prices Going? – Analysis

0
0

Investors in Turkey country are investing in coal-burning thermal power plants, which are very cheap in upfront cost. The reason for their investment depends on the fact that imported coal is very cheap in investment reports. Is this correct?

It is very difficult to answer this question immediately as “True” or immediately “False”. Why is this hard to answer? Because this is a gamble, as imported coal prices may increase over time depending on the market supply-demand situation. The price in the spot market of imported coal with the upper heat value of 6600 kcal/ kg HHV or 12,000 BTU / lb HHV can be as high as 160 US $ per metricTon as in previous years.

Currently, Australian coal (Australian thermal coal, 12000- btu / lb HHV, less than 1 sulfur%, 14% ash, FOB Newcastle / Port Kembla, US Dollars per metric ton) per ton is at 99 US $, South Africa 84 US $ (South African coal export price, US Dollars per metric ton), the cheapest is Columbia 6000 kcal / kg coal FOB price of imported US $ 78 per metric ton. Ref: http://www.indexmundi.com/. So add 6-8% for transport to your seaport. The cost of Kw-hour electricity generation becomes 8-9 US cents whereas the prevailing domestic market electricity price is around 5-6 US cents per kW-hour.

The cost of imported coal electricity production is above the market unit prices. So what happens then? The producer declares “commercial victimization”. In a sense, they declare “force majeure”, and stop electricity generation. The imported coal tax was tied to a certain formula with a new decision. If the prices on the ICE Rotterdam stock exchange are below $70, the difference between $70 and prevailing price in dollars will be taxed. It is currently around US $80. So at the moment there is no tax on imported coal for power plants.

Let’s come to the actual price of imported coal. Market professionals calculate the price of the fuel in US$ per “1 million British Thermal Unit BTU (MMBTU)” at higher heat value (HHV). As of November 2016, imported coal with 6000-6600 kcal / kg higher heating value (HHV) or 12,000 BTU / lb HHV is today between FOB 78-99 US dollars at spot price of world markets quota RichardsBay- South Africa, NewCastle- Australia or Rotterdam delivered in MetricTon. Add transportation costs of 6-8% FOB-CIF at seaport delivery and then recalculate your US$ price per 1 million BTU with surcharges. Simple arithmetic yields you 4-5 US Dollars per MMBTU at today’s prices.

On the other hand, in the local Afşin-Elbistan open pit coal fields, the price of 1000-1,150 kcal / kg (LHV) of low-value indigenous lignite mine is 7.50-8.00 US per ton. This figure gives you 1.10 -1.20 US Dollars / MMBTU unit price. The central quarry in Manisa Soma underground mine has a price for 2100 kcal / kg HHV sub-bituminous domestic coal mine, as 24.00 US dollars per ton. This gives you 2.00 US Dollars / MMBTU unit price.

Also check the prices of Çayırhan, Seyitömer, Kangal, Soma, Yatağan lignite mines, the price is around 2.00-2.50 US$ per “1 million BTU”. The price of local lignite fuel in public power plants is very low.

Similarly in coal-based thermal power plants in the US, it is expected that the price of coal will be below USD 2,000 per MMBTU. On the other hand, our domestic coal has high ash, too much water or moisture. So, total output may be 10% lower than imported coal pulverized coal firing power plants, but this will never change the price advantage for domestic coal.

“Are Imported coal prices in Russia cheap?” Russia’s imported coal sales prices have never been cheaper than the world’s imported coal prices. The Russians make calculations very detailed. For coal they produce, they declare their coal price slightly lower than world market prices at that delivery spot, often at the same price. Imported coal may rise uncontrollably. You may have to shut down your plant.

So playing with imported coal is a gamble. Do not gamble, take only calculated risks. You never get surprised by the local coal. Build the domestic coal plant by yourself, do your design yourself.

Today, even if the smallest countries can make thermal power plants themselves, we can and we do. However, we have been condemned to foreign designs for years, depended on foreign project finance. There is nothing secret in the design of the thermal power plants. Now there are Turkish engineering companies to do the thermal power plant construction, fabrication, basic and detail design. To reduce your energy dependence, to have your supply security, you should also have reasonable number of imported coal power plants. But this amount should never rise to the levels that will increase the current deficit. Imported coal plants must be built to be away from forests, agriculture, sites, tourism areas.

All of the imported coal power plants are established by the seaside, to ensure cheap bulk transportation, as sea transportation is necessary. According to my rule-off- thumb humble calculations, for an imported coal plant with a capacity of 1400+ MWe, we need to burn 700+ tons of imported coal per hour based on different initial parameters. At a seashore harbor 2-3 km away from the power plant, there must be at least 500 thousand ton capacity coal stock area, at 30 days capacity at full load. The transport capacity of coal bands could be 2000 tons per hour minimum.

The cheapest imported coal is available now from Columbia. Imported cargo from Columbia now costs 78 US Dollars per metric ton, plus a 6-8% CIF carry price. If the coal stockpile is full, then bulk cargo ships with 100 thousand tons capacity would be waiting for a month and can not download. Since most plants do not work due to the price of imported coal alone because cost is expensive. Cost of electricity generation is high above prevailing market prices. So producer declares themselves as “victim of commerce”, sort of “force majeure”. So imported coal thermal power plants do not work for weeks, 30-day capacity coal stockyard is full, coal cargo ships are waiting for a month for unloading order.

Are all of these real? What is the status of other imported coal plants after all this? Sugözü, Çanakkale, İskenderun, Zonguldak imported coal plants, do they work in this market conditions? Or did we lock the imported coal plants? What are the conditions of the investors who are installing the new imported coal power plants? What is the status of the new investments in coal-fired thermal power plants? Are they suddenly stopped?

Thermal power plants at seaside are explaining their status as technical failure as the reason why they are not operating at full capacity. There is a breakdown in the coal mills, a fault in the turbine generator and they had to reach to complete stop. however they were working last week despite their high cost against lower prevailing market prices. They are now out of the system. Now we can track the daily electricity generation of the individual plants through the public web site, seffaflik.epias.com.tr. Here you can see the latest data. Commercially we are sure that they had passed through a period of relaxed imported coal prices for the power plants, but for those months in which they do not work, at least the prices now are higher than in the spring months, they will soon suffer with greater harm.

Imported coal is not cheap, it was never cheap in the past, it is a gamble, it can be expensive. The US$ price per metric ton can be cheap if it goes below 60 US$. Today imported coal is very expensive compared to domestic coal unit prices per MMBTU. Do not look at what is written in the popular media, do your own calculations, and see the end result.

Nicoletta Hermann: Nakhchivan Experience Has Awakened My Passion For Caucasus – OpEd

0
0

The Tourism Sector in the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan is a fundamental component of the Azerbaijani Cultural Diplomacy and National Heritage. One of the main priorities of the current Government of Nakhchivan, led by Chairman Vasif Talibov, under the guidance of the President of Azerbaijan Mr. Ilham Aliyev, has been the strengthening of the Tourism Industry in this region of Azerbaijan.

It must be noted that Nakhchivan is the perfect place for visitors who admire and appreciate natural monuments, picturesque landscape, Duzdag Salt Mines and natural geological phenomena’s – suitable to conduct compelling scene shootings for Hollywood movies – reflected upon the massive rocks that are observed on the sidelines of the paved highway that connects the Nakhchivan City with the Region of Ordubad. Moreover, European visitors will find magnificent samples of Islamic Art and Architecture, Nakhchivan is the cradle of the most progressive Caucasian Architecture School and home of the world’s most prominent architects whose works have influenced the urban development of many European capitals.

According to Prof. Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti, from La Sapienza University in Rome, “Nakhchivan is the most important destination for all of those scholars and visitors who are interested in Islamic Art and Islamic Civilization, with important architectural treasures and unparalleled monuments that are preserved to this day.”

Prof. Amoretti adds that: “Nakhchivan is a small territory but beautifully situated in an area rich of medieval monuments built by Turkish Muslims, although there are less expensive and more weekly flights that connect Nakhchivan to Istanbul, tourists are still focused only on visiting the Turkish territories. The extraordinary monuments that were built between the eleventh and fourteenth century are unique and important to human civilization. The excellent relations that Nakhchivan has with neighboring countries, the Republic of Turkey, Iran and Georgia; makes it very easy to cross the border by bus or car, meanwhile internal security in Nakhchivan is impeccable.” Such advancements could further facilitate the growth of tourism excursions and strengthen cultural diplomacy and multiculturalism projects of Azerbaijan.

According to Italian Emeritus Professor Gianroberto Scarcia: “Azerbaijan can serve as the starting point of regional tourism expeditions that could include: Georgia, Iran, Turkey and Bulgaria. To conclude, according to our experience in Nakhchivan, this region of Azerbaijan waits to be discovered and won’t disappoint anyone.”

According to a group of Norwegian tourists, “Nakhchivan is a place that generates wonderful memories.” In May 2011, four distinguished Norwegian tourists and scholars had visited the Nakhchivan Physiotherapy Hospital, Carpet Gallery and the Historical Museum. Earlier they had visited the cities of Baku, Kish and regions of Sheki and Gandja and later on visited Nakhchivan region.

Their observations were exceptional: “Geographically, this was a special territory. We could see Mount Ararat in the west, and on the South, on the other side of the River Araz, the border with Iran. That was exotic for us. We were also very impressed with the influence of The Silk Road, and the special monuments connected to this historical commercial artery.”

Moreover for the Norwegian delegation: “it was a unique feeling to listen to the story of Noah and see his burial place and grave monument. The story of Noah is common and brings together Muslims and Christians. We visited several museums, and some of us enjoyed particularly the Carpet Gallery.”

Mrs. Nicoletta Hermann, a visitor from Switzerland, shared her thoughts about Nakhchivan. Mrs. Hermann’s Nakhchivan experience was memorable, proactive and had awakened an interest to her passion for the Caucasus region; “what a nice view when landing in Nakhchivan! The unique silhouette of mountain Ilandag where Noah stacked his ark is a visual pleasure. Anyone who flies from Baku to Nakhchivan should seek a window seat and not sleep through the whole flight. Our first impression of the city named after the autonomous region itself is extremely positive. The boulevard and the buildings remind us of western cities, others are representing the ancient past of Azerbaijan. There were no stressful traffic jams, no car hours and neither an urban chaos. There are no precarious dilapidated houses throughout Nakhchivan. Indeed we landed in Swiss Caucasus.”

In regards to her compelling explorations in Nakhchivan, Mrs. Hermann adds:
“For the first three days we explored the Azerbaijani enclave of Nakhchivan accompanied by Hasan Pashali of Natig Translation and Travel Company LLC. It becomes obvious that this jewel is seldom visited by tourists; it is a dream for photographers and lovers of landscape and nature alike. Those who do not like hustle and bustle of the big city should look elsewhere. Our knowledgeable guide and diligent driver Hasan showed us major landmarks including Noah’s grave and beautiful tombs. We were also impressed by the Duzdag Salt Mine which also houses a hospital where families and individuals recover overnight. The salt helps to cure asthma and other respiratory conditions. I myself would like to stay there for a night.”

For Hermann the spectacular nature of Nakhchivan “exceeds by far anything created by mankind.” Her attentive eye has caught “the sand dunes – like the majestic hills, colorful mountains, clear lakes – and winding rivers and streets become very tempting to stop and take photos. Poor Hasan he was ever so patient! It was an unforgettable drive through the spectacular mountain landscape to Ordubad, a small town in the southeast of Nakhchivan. My camera never had a rest. The only negative about our time in Nakhchivan was that we did not stay for a longer period of time!”

The Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan is home of a Classical and Middle Age city, it is the birthplace of Abid, an influential medieval sculptor and one of the founders of Nakhchivan’s Medieval Tradition of Art and Sculpture. Nakhchivan, as an historically influential Autonomous Republic in the territory of Azerbaijan – under the leadership of Chairman Vasif Talibov – in the last two decades has made a vast contribution and taken noteworthy steps towards higher education, religious architecture, preservation of archeological sites, restoration of fortresses and preservation of natural monuments which deeply exemplify the rich culture and portray the Republic of Azerbaijan and its unique history of nation building.

The works of Abid in Nakhchivan, the western most region of Azerbaijan and a genuine cradle of human civilization, have established new standards in the European School of Sculpture that proved to be ahead of his time as well as taken the art of sculpture into new heights. Nakhchivan has produced more ancient and current history than any other region of the Caucasus, it has given many scientists to the world, visionary government leaders such as: National Leader Heydar Aliyev and Chairman Vasif Talibov, well respected architects and economists who have greatly contributed for the urban and economic growth of the Caspian Region and beyond.

Despite numerous past historic events and the cruel two decades long economic blockade imposed by Armenia; the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan continues to flourish economically and surprise the world stage with its compelling castles, religious architecture, sophisticated tourism sector, that have influenced many other urban centers in the nearby cross roads of Eurasia.

Dark Forces Winning The Game – OpEd

0
0

With the latest presidential election results in the USA, 2016 is proving to be a bonanza year for the right-wing extremists everywhere, or so it seems these days. The next year, 2017, may even look better for them.

Amid a migrant crisis, sluggish economic growth and growing disillusionment with the European Union, far-right parties have been achieving electoral success in a number of European nations, e.g., Hungary, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Slovakia, Romania and Switzerland. Even Germany, Greece, Italy and Cyprus are not far behind in seeing the resurgence of anti-immigrant, far right, populist parties.

What’s uniting the parties is an “imagined Muslim enemy in Europe,” according to Farid Hafez, a sociology and political science professor at Austria’s Salzburg University.

Last September, the Alternative for Germany party, which started three years ago as a protest movement against the euro currency, took second place in the Legislature in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the home state of Chancellor Angela Merkel. The party attracts voters who are anti-establishment, anti-liberalization, anti-European, or more properly, anti-everything that has come to be regarded as the new “norm.” Frauke Petry, the party’s leader, has said border guards might need to turn guns on anyone crossing a frontier illegally. The party’s policy platform says “Islam does not belong in Germany” and calls for a ban on the construction of mosques.

In France, the National Front – established in 1972 (whose founders and sympathizers included former Nazi collaborators and members of the wartime collaborationist Vichy regime) – is a nationalist party that uses populist rhetoric to promote its racist, anti-immigration and anti-European Union positions. The party favors protectionist economic policies and would clamp down on government benefits for immigrants, including health care, and drastically reduce the number of immigrants allowed into France. The party may win the presidential election in 2017.

In the Netherlands, the anti-European Union, anti-Islam Party for Freedom has called for closing all Islamic schools and recording the ethnicity of all Dutch citizens. In early November, the party was leading in polls ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections.

In Greece, the neo-fascist party Golden Dawn – founded in 1980 – came to international attention in 2012 when it entered the Greek Parliament for the first time, winning 18 seats and becoming the country’s third-largest party. Golden Dawn, which again won 18 seats in parliamentary elections last September, was largely silent as the migrant crisis in Greece began, but in recent weeks, members have been marching in several areas where migrants are camped. The party hailed Mr. Trump’s election as a victory against “illegal immigration” and is in favor of “ethnically clean states.”

In Hungary, Jobbik, an anti-immigration, populist and economic protectionist party, won 20 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections in 2014, making it the country’s third-largest party. In September, a reporter for an internet television channel associated with the party showed her kicking and tripping immigrants in a makeshift camp near Hungary’s border with Serbia.
The Sweden Democrats party, an anti-immigrant party with probable ties with white supremacist movement, won about 13 percent of the vote in elections in September 2014. The party was Sweden’s most popular in some opinion polls in the winter. A poll on Nov. 16 showed the party vying for second place, with support from 21.5 percent of voters.

In March of this year, Slovakia’s governing party ran on an anti-migrant platform and yet, lost its majority in parliamentary elections. The far-right extremists of the anti-Roma People’s Party-Our Slovakia made striking gains by winning 8 percent of the vote, securing 14 seats in the country’s 150-member Parliament. The party’s leader, Marian Kotleba, has said, “Even one immigrant is one too many,” and has called NATO a “criminal organization.” He has also spoken favorably of Jozef Tiso, the head of the Slovak state during World War II, who was responsible for sending tens of thousands of Jews to concentration camps. The party favors leaving the European Union and the Eurozone.

In Austria, early this year, Norbert Hofer of the nationalist and anti-immigration Freedom Party lost in the runoff presidential election against Alexander Van der Bellen by just 31,000 votes. He got 49.7% of the votes. In June the party challenged the results of the presidential runoff election, citing “numerous irregularities and failures” in the counting of votes. In July, Austria’s highest court ordered a repeat of the runoff election, which is scheduled to take place on Dec. 4. Mr. Hofer had campaigned on strengthening the country’s borders and its army, limiting benefits for immigrants and favoring Austrians in the job market. The party, whose motto is “Austria first,” holds 40 of the 183 seats in the National Council.

Many Europeans are questioning immigration, integration, the euro, the EU and the establishment, while promoting a stiff dose of nationalist sentiment. Sadly, it has become “salonfaehig”, as German-speakers would say, meaning socially acceptable, these days.

Are we witnessing reincarnation of the Weimar Republic, the precursor to Nazi Germany, esp. in the western world?

A little bit of history may help us here to answer the question. In 1921 Kurt Tucholsky, a left-wing intellectual, claimed that “Germans had two passions: beer and antisemitism.” He added that “the beer was twenty-eight proof, but the antisemitism was a hundred proof.” There were numerous anti-Semitic publications that abounded in Germany including the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which was brought to Germany by Alfred Rosenberg, a refugee from the Baltic part of the Russian Empire, who became a Nazi leader.

According to the historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler, German history before as well as during the Nazi years was marked by pronounced polarization of the society into groups perceived as insiders and outsiders, friends and enemies. “Race”, in its distorted Weimar definition, became the primary criterion for defining identity.

Adolf Hitler and his propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels believed that hatred against the ‘others’ – those of not ‘pure’ German blood – could be exploited to create unity and gather support for the Nazi movement. The deep-seated and long-standing hatred of Jews and gypsies (Roma and Sinti) was a wellspring that the Nazis tapped on their way to power. Nazism came to be viewed by most Germans as a type of political religion with the Church leaders rarely opposing the politics of racism and hatred that attracted increasing numbers of followers.

As the economic situation deteriorated in 1930, and many disillusioned voters turned to extremist parties, Adolf Hitler, a dedicated foe of the Weimar Republic, became the only political leader by 1932 who was capable of commanding a legislative majority. On January 30, 1933, an aged President von Hindenburg reluctantly named Hitler Chancellor of the Republic. Using his legislative majority and the support of Hindenburg’s emergency presidential powers, Hitler proceeded to destroy the Weimar Republic. He was able to put the blame for Germany’s troubles upon the socially and economically ‘unequal’ Jews who had remained the “other” in Germany.

During the recent presidential election in the USA we saw a fair share of similar blame-games and passions against the ‘others’. Donald Trump portrayed himself as the anti-establishment avatar who would ‘make America great’ again; he blamed the Mexican illegals for ‘stealing’ jobs of ordinary Americans and raping and killing White Americans; he used fear-mongering tactics against Muslim immigrants to solidify his position amongst the rabidly Islamophobic evangelical Christians. No wonder that hate crimes against the Muslims are now all-time high. Hijab-clad Muslim women continue to be harassed and threatened, and mosques attacked and vandalized in what is alarmingly becoming the Trumpland, and not the land of the immigrants.
In recent days, Trump has named some of his picks for top posts in his administration. They include well-known racists, bigots, white supremacists and potential Nazi-like fascists.

Steve Bannon has been named as Trump’s chief strategist. Before joining Trump’s campaign as his CEO, he was the executive director of Breitbart News, an outlet he described in July as a “platform of the alt-right.” In a new interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon said, “Darkness is good.” “Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power.” “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist,” he told The Hollywood Reporter. “The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get [expletive] over.” [Hidden, of course, in Bannon’s interview is the fact that one of those globalists is Trump who ‘gutted the American working class’ to profit his business.]

Ex-army General Michael T. Flynn has been named as Trump’s National Security chief. He tweeted in February that “fear of Muslims is RATIONAL,” including a link to a YouTube video that claims the religion of Islam wants “80% of people enslaved or exterminated.” He had described Islam as a ‘malignant cancer’.

Trump has chosen Jeff Sessions, who has served in the Senate for 20 years, to be the next attorney general — a position that will give him the platform to shape civil rights policy and to defend the constitutionality of any policies that effectively restrict Muslim immigration, legal and civil liberties experts warn. Sessions has also been dogged with accusations of racism, which sank his nomination to become a federal judge after President Ronald Reagan nominated him 30 years ago. At his Senate hearing, Sessions said he was not a racist, but several Justice Department employees testified that he had used racist language.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed dismay about Session’s nomination. It only adds “to a growing list” of nominees “with troubling pasts, and troubling histories of bigotry and intolerance,” Hooper said.

Trump’s pick to lead the CIA is Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), a Kansas congressman who is also seen as a fierce partisan on polarizing issues including the deaths of U.S. personnel in Benghazi, saying that the Obama administration was guilty of a scandal “worse than Watergate.” He has called for Snowden to face the death penalty and for Clinton to be barred from receiving classified information. He has used his perch on the House Intelligence Committee to attack major pillars of President Obama’s foreign policy agenda, including the nuclear deal with Iran. Just hours before his name surfaced as Trump’s CIA nominee, Pompeo tweeted that he looked forward to “rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.”

Separately, Pompeo said that Muslim leaders who fail to denounce acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam were “potentially complicit” in the attacks.

Trump has called for the CIA to resume the use of waterboarding and other interrogation measures widely condemned as torture. Trump has derided the quality of the intelligence from the nation’s spy community, publicly belittling a multiagency conclusion that Russia used cyberespionage methods to interfere in the U.S. election.

Pompeo is not known to have publicly backed those positions and in some cases has articulated views that would seem at odds with those of the Trump team. Pompeo reportedly has close ties to the Koch family, Kansas billionaires who have devoted a considerable part of their wealth to advancing a deeply conservative agenda and driving Democrats out of office. Articles in Kansas papers indicate that Pompeo built much of his wealth with investment funds from Koch industries and that his campaigns for Congress have been backed by Koch money.

With such picks in his new administration, Trump is sending a loud message, which is highly disconcerting to many Americans who don’t want to see their country turn into a fascist country ruled by Herr Trump.

Over the last 17 years, Europe has seen the number of seats for far-right parties double in each election, from 11 percent in 1999 to 22.9 percent in 2014, according to a report by European Parliament research fellow Thilo Janssen. If the trend continues, the far-right could win 37 percent of European Parliament seats in the next election, the same percentage that Adolf Hitler’s National Society party won in 1932, resulting in the rise of the Nazi regime. These parties are emboldened by Trump victory in the USA.

As noted by Mayaan Jaffe-Hoffman, many of these political groups have a history of antisemitism. “After the fall of the Nazi regime, blatant antisemitism lost popularity, and so did the far-Right”, Farid Hafez said. However, when large numbers of foreign workers began streaming into Europe in the early 1990s, the far-right tried to re-establish prominence through economic nationalism, a feeling of loyalty and pride in their own country.

They also felt native-born Europeans should be given job preferences and welfare support over non-natives. But their efforts were largely unsuccessful. After 9/11, and in the wake of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe from war-torn countries in Asia and Africa, and the nihilistic attacks there, the far-right found its ticket in Islamophobia, very much like antisemitism of the 19th century. Muslims (like the German Jews of the Nazi-era) have become global scapegoats, blamed for all negative social phenomena.

“There is a growing fear in Europe that Muslims will demographically take over sooner or later,” says Ayhan Kaya, director of the European Institute at Istanbul Bilgi University in Turkey. Bar-Ilan University professor Amikam Nachmani says Nazi-style rhetoric employed against the Jews is now targeted against Muslims. He estimates the anti-Muslim hatred increasingly being employed by the far-Right is a proxy for its longstanding racism and anti-Semitic ideologies.

Ironically, Islamophobia was fed, amongst others, by the Jewish organizers of the Jerusalem Summit and Stop Islamization of Europe with their Christian-Zionist friends in the West. What they sowed is now reaping its evil! In France, for example, there were 806 anti-Semitic hate crimes against Jews in 2015, as reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). While attacks against Muslims tripled in volume, the total was only 400, half the number of attacks committed against Jewish people and property. “The far-right parties claim they want to defend Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundations,” said Hafez. “This is a game.”

Truly, the far-right populist parties and Likudnik Zionists have now become strange bedfellows.

History has repeatedly shown the futility of tying knots with the devil, and yet that lesson continues to get lost in the face of a crackpot union with fraudulent voices on the extreme right. Trump’s election win is sure to strengthen the dark forces of our time – the far right parties in Europe and the religious extremists in other parts of our world.

Dalai Lama’s Visit To Mongolia Indicates Shape Of Things To Come – OpEd

0
0

The Dalai Lama’s recent visit to Mongolia has been followed by a bitter outburst from China , which demanded that, “Mongolia not allow the visit by the Dalai Lama and do not promote any facilitation for the separatist activities by the Dalai clique.”

Despite of the fact that Mongolia is heavily dependent on trade with China and does not have economic and military might to face any confrontation with China, the government of Mongolia has shown rare courage to allow the visit of the Dalai Lama, in spite of knowing that China would vehemently criticize and oppose this action. Though Mongolia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs had said that the Dalai Lama’s visit has no connection to the government, it is very clear that the government of Mongolia has defied the dictate of China , for the sake of a cause.

The action of the Mongolian government is in sharp contrast to the action of a few other countries like Sri Lanka and USA.

Despite of being a country with large Buddhist population, Sri Lankan government refused visa to the Dalai Lama and denied opportunity to Buddhist citizens of Sri Lanka to receive and honor the Dalai Lama. Sri Lankan government took this unprincipled stand fearing opposition from China.

President Obama received the Dalai Lama through the back door fearing criticism from China. By this ill advised move, President Obama, who received the Nobel prize for peace ,humiliated himself affecting his reputation and making people think that he is a person who does not have the courage of conviction. Further, the claim of USA that it is champion of freedom and liberty was blown into pieces by this single act of President Obama ,which many people thought amount to belittling the Dalai Lama, the venerable leader of the Buddhist community.

Certainly, the world conscience remain disturbed due to the aggression of China by occupying the Tibet forcibly and suppressing protest in Tibet violently. Even after several decades of China entering Tibet, large section of the people around the world are demanding that Tibet should be liberated. China clearly knows this and this is why it is demanding that no country should entertain the Dalai Lama.

The bold action of Mongolia in receiving the Dalai Lama is bound to become a trend setter in the coming days, with more countries emboldened to encourage the visit of the Dalai Lama.

The fact that hundreds of monks and worshippers waited for several hours in biting temperature in Mongolia for a glimpse of 81 year old Dalai Lama reflects the desire and aspiration of Buddhists around the world . It should give greater confidence to all Tibetans in Tibet and across the world as well as the freedom lovers to continue the struggle for the liberation of Tibet with re doubled vigour.

With Donald Trump becoming the President of USA, Tibetans all over the world and freedom activists should appeal to Donald Trump to make his stand very clear towards the cause of freedom of Tibet.

In his pre-election campaign, Donald Trump showed that he can think out of the box and reverse the policies of the US government on many matters. There is no doubt that US has been following the policy of appeasing China as far as Tibetan issue is concerned .

Tibetans should utilize the break given by Mongolia by receiving the Dalai Lama and they should inject more dynamism and impetus to the campaign for freedom of Tibet.

Tibetans should appeal to Donald Trump to receive the Dalai Lama through the front door rather than the back door that President Obama did, clearly sending a signal to China that the cause of Tibet is dear to USA.

NATO Nouvelle: Everything Old Is New Again – Analysis

0
0

By G. Alexander Crowther*

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is heralded as the world’s most successful military alliance. However, it finds itself under pressure from within and without. Some people in NATO countries do not understand the importance of its goal: to safeguard its members’ freedom and security by political and military means. This goal is executed through three mission sets: collective defense, crisis management, and cooperative security.1 Other people outside NATO countries understand those missions well—and seek to destroy the Alliance.

Recent comments that NATO Allies are free-riders and calls for the United States to leave the Alliance are rooted in ignorance and do not take into account the reforms that NATO has sought, nor the importance of the Alliance in the 21st century. The end of the Cold War found 15 Allies in a defensive crouch in Western Europe. Since that time, NATO expanded its mission set to include crisis management, and its area of operations to include Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia. NATO has become the center of the global coalition of the willing. The Alliance now has 28 members and another 41 partner nations through four different partnership programs. It has also reorganized several times, changing structure to account for changing mission sets. NATO today is an alliance that operates globally but is returning to its original mission of collective defense. This article describes how the Alliance has changed since the end of the Cold War and where it is today. NATO has passed through the crisis management era and has returned to another era of collective defense.

After the Cold War

The 1990s. At the end of the Cold War, some thought that NATO should be relegated to the dustbin of history along with the conflict that had birthed it. The Alliance survived, however, and managed to adapt to the new era, establishing the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 1994 to engage its former opponents of the Warsaw Pact. Additionally, NATO morphed the North Atlantic Cooperation Council to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997. It was designed to “strengthen and extend peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, on the basis of the shared values and principles which underlie their cooperation.”2 NATO also contemplated expansion in the 1990s, producing a study on the subject in 1995.3 As its final pre-9/11 mission set, NATO conducted three different operations to Macedonia during 2001–2003 to help mitigate rising ethnic tensions.

NATO also began to do out-of-area operations during the 1990s. The Alliance was designed to defend members against a Soviet offensive, not for expeditionary operations, but national forces did have expeditionary capabilities that NATO was able to tap into. Early operations included the deployment of both NATO Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and the ACE Mobile Force (Air) and air defense packages to Turkey during the first Gulf War; assisting an international relief effort by flying teams of humanitarian assistance experts and medical advisors to Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent States nations in 1992 using AWACS trainer cargo aircraft following the breakup of the Soviet Union; and providing increased AWACS coverage of the Central Mediterranean to monitor air approach routes from the North African littoral in May 1992 after the United Nations (UN) imposed sanctions on Libya after the Lockerbie bombing.

When Yugoslavia broke up in 1992, NATO became involved, usually in support of UN declarations. Because they saw it as a Slavic area, Russia opposed outside intervention in Yugoslavia. In summer of 1993, NATO started to enforce the UN arms embargo in the Adriatic Sea and enforced a no-fly zone declared by the UN Security Council, where NATO conducted its first combat operations when it shot down four Bosnian Serb aircraft on February 28, 1994. NATO began airstrikes in 1995, which were credited as a key factor in ending the war in Bosnia. The Alliance immediately deployed a 60,000-strong UN-mandated Implementation Force to the Balkans and then deployed a 32,000-strong Stabilization Force in December 1996 in support of the Dayton Peace Accords. NATO ended this operation in December 2004 and maintains a military headquarters in the country. NATO also entered Kosovo in June 1999 to end widespread violence and halt a humanitarian disaster, remaining there until 2008.

September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks gave NATO a new lease on life. In response to the attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that “an armed attack against one . . . shall be considered an attack against them all” and went to the assistance of the United States.4 This is the only time that Article 5 has been declared and was recognized as a watershed event, demonstrating the utility of the Alliance. In an immediate response, NATO executed Operation Eagle Assist from late 2001 to early 2002, conducting over 360 sorties of seven AWACS aircraft on patrol over the United States.5

The 2000s

The early 2000s were a busy time for the Alliance. The largest and best-known mission was NATO leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from August 2003 to December 2014. ISAF was one of the largest international crisis-management operations ever, bringing together contributions from over 50 countries. By the end of 2014, the process of transitioning full security responsibility from ISAF troops to the Afghan army and police forces was completed and the ISAF mission came to a close. On January 1, 2015, a new NATO-led noncombat mission called Resolute Support (to train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Security Forces and institutions) was launched.

During the second Gulf War in 2003, NATO deployed AWACS radar aircraft and air defense batteries to enhance the defense of Turkey. NATO later provided the training mission in Iraq from 2004 to 2011, training, mentoring, and assisting the Iraqi Security Forces.6

NATO participated in protecting public events, deploying forces in support of the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic games held in Athens with Operation Distinguished Games and the Riga Summit in Latvia in 2006.

NATO practiced international disaster relief in the 2000s. In 2005, for instance, nine member nations moved 189 tons of supplies to the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina while also delivering 3,500 tons of supplies, engineers, medical units, and specialized equipment. In response to a request from Pakistan, NATO assisted in the urgent earthquake relief effort, which was one of the Alliance’s largest humanitarian relief initiatives to date. NATO has also helped coordinate assistance to other countries hit by natural disasters, including Turkey, Ukraine, and Portugal. It does this through its Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre. In addition to missions in Central Asia and the Middle East, NATO moved into Africa in the 2000s, assisting the African Union in Darfur, Sudan, from 2005 to 2007, and beginning counterpiracy maritime patrols in the Gulf of Aden in 2008 and off the Horn of Africa in 2009.

Libya 2011. In the wake of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011, several nations began operations in support of UNSCR goals. Initially, NATO enforced a maritime arms embargo, then a no-fly zone and, on March 31, ultimately took over sole command and control of all military operations for Libya. The NATO-led Operation Unified Protector had three distinct components:

  • Starting on March 23, enforcing an arms embargo on the high seas of the Mediterranean to prevent the transfer of arms, related material, and mercenaries to Libya
  • Starting on March 25, enforcing a no-fly zone to prevent any aircraft from bombing civilian targets
  • Starting on March 31, commencing air and naval strikes against military forces involved in attacks (or threats to attack) on Libyan civilians and civilian-populated areas.

The operation officially ended on October 31, 2011, after participants performed over 26,500 sorties, including over 9,700 strike sorties.7

Current Operations

Afghanistan Since 2015. NATO currently leads Operation Resolute Support, a noncombat mission that provides training, advice, and assistance to the Afghan National Security Forces and institutions. The operation launched on January 1, 2015, and includes approximately 13,000 personnel from NATO and partner countries and operates with one hub in Kabul/Bagram and four spokes in Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, and Laghman.

As NATO has given up the combat mission in Afghanistan, this operation works with the Afghan government, ministry of defense, and military, providing functions including support planning, programming, and budgeting; assuring transparency, accountability, and oversight; supporting the adherence to the principles of rule of law and good governance; and supporting the establishment and sustainment of processes such as force generation, recruiting, training, managing, and development of personnel.8

Since NATO is an international organization that uses force, international law is an important basis for all operations. The legal basis of Resolute Support rests on a formal invitation from the Afghan government and the Status of Forces Agreement between NATO and Afghanistan. UNSCR 2189 of December 12, 2014, welcomes Resolute Support and underscores the importance of continued international support for the stability of Afghanistan, and it reflects NATO commitment to an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, reflecting the strengthening political consultations and practical cooperation within the framework of the NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership signed in 2010.9

Kosovo Since 2008. Although the major NATO operation in Kosovo wrapped up in 2008, NATO maintains approximately 4,800 Allied troops there as part of NATO’s Kosovo Force, preserving the peace that was imposed in the wake of its deployment in 1999. Following Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February 2008, NATO agreed that it would continue to maintain its presence on the basis of UNSCR 1244, and has helped to create a professional and multi-ethnic Kosovo Security Force.10

Monitoring the Mediterranean Sea Since 2001. After the 9/11 attacks, NATO sought ways to counter the threat of international terrorism. In October 2001, it launched the maritime surveillance operation Active Endeavour, detecting and deterring terrorist activity in the Mediterranean. NATO has been systematically boarding suspect ships since April 2003. At the Warsaw Summit in July 2016, NATO leaders decided to transition Operation Active Endeavour to a maritime security operation now called Sea Guardian.11

Counterpiracy off the Horn of Africa Since 2009. The UN Secretary-General requested maritime protection for food convoys in the Gulf of Aden in 2008. NATO responded with Operation Allied Provider between October and December 2008.12 The next iteration of NATO maritime protection was Operation Allied Protector, between March and August of 2009. The current mission is Operation Ocean Shield, approved on August 17, 2009, by the North Atlantic Council.13 During this time NATO forces have worked closely with the European Union’s Operation Atalanta,14 the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 151,15 and individual country contributors.

Supporting the African Union Since 2007. NATO also works ashore in Africa, supporting the African Union (AU) in its peacekeeping missions on the African continent since June 2007, providing airlift support for AU peacekeepers of the AU Mission in Somalia.

Air Policing Missions Since 2004. Air policing missions are collective peacetime operations that enable NATO to detect, track, and identify all violations and infringements of its airspace and to take appropriate action. Allied fighter jets patrol the airspace of Allies who do not have air superiority aircraft of their own such as Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland, and Slovenia. Since Russia’s illegal military intervention in Ukraine in 2014, Russian operations tempo has risen while NATO has been taking extra reassurance measures for its Allies, including the deployment of additional aircraft to reinforce missions over Albania and Slovenia, as well as the Baltic region where NATO F-16s have intercepted Russian aircraft repeatedly violating allied airspace.16

While air policing has been a viable mission for NATO, Russian revanchism has caused some NATO members to rethink this approach. Recently a senior NATO commander visiting the Atlantic Council remarked that it is time for the air policing mission to change to an air defense mission because of additional threats and the fact that NATO has stopped routinely practicing air defense and badly needs practice in this basic defense function. This lack of experience at air defense missions is an example of NATO’s lack of paying attention to high-end combat fundamentals, which became a second-tier priority when the Alliance paid more attention to crisis management rather than collective defense.

Issues

While NATO has expanded its mission set and conducted operations from Iceland to Afghanistan, there have been issues, mainly at the political level.

NATO Expansion. One major issue for the Alliance has been the expansion of membership from 12 to currently 28 countries. Founded with 12 members, NATO integrated Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain during the Cold War. After a study of the subject of expansion in 1995,17 NATO further integrated the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004; and Albania and Croatia, who joined in 2009.18 Currently, Montenegro is an “invitee,” while three other countries “aspire” to membership: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and Macedonia.19

The expansion into the former Warsaw Pact was contentious for two main reasons. First is the Russian reaction, while the second is whether the Alliance could actually defend some of the easternmost countries, particularly the Baltics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Russia has reacted negatively to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The Alliance is now less than 500 miles from Moscow. Russian issues with NATO expansion have become some of the major disinformation operations deployed by the government.

The discussion on defending countries such as those in the Baltics has two main thrusts: that they cannot be defended from Russian aggression and that Eastern European NATO members could drag NATO into an Article 5 situation by provoking Russia into an attack. One of the major discussion points at the July 2016 Warsaw Summit was preparation for the defense of the Baltics,20 while Baltic and Polish visits to the United States always contain a discussion about how to ensure that the Alliance provides Article 5 mutual defense.

The idea of “cooperative security” as a mission set for NATO came from the Lisbon Summit in 2010.21 The main programs are the Partnership for Peace program, Mediterranean Dialogue, and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). NATO also partners with the EU through the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) as well as with other like-minded nations around the world, often referred to as “partners across the globe.”

The PfP was founded in 1994 and consists of 22 members: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.22 Twelve former PfP countries have become NATO Allies.23

The Mediterranean Dialogue was also founded in 1994 and consists of Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia.24 In the wake of the success of the Mediterranean Dialogue, the ICI was founded in 2004 and includes the following four countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.25

The EAPC consists of all NATO member countries and the following partner countries: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.26

“Partners across the globe” are a variety of countries who have similar goals, including Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Republic of Korea.27

Reforms. During the Cold War, NATO had a variety of subordinate commands designed to fight a war against the Soviet Union. In general, these organizations reflected the need to fight on land, sea, and air in the north, center, and south of Europe. With the end of the Cold War, NATO undertook a series of transformations to adapt to the new world. Now NATO has Allied Command Operations (ACO), which is the warfighting headquarters, and Allied Command Transformation, which is responsible for training, education, transformation, and so forth. Under ACO are two joint force commands as well as Allied Maritime Command, Allied Air Command, and Allied Land Command. There are nine rapidly deployable corps headquarters as well as Immediate Reaction Forces (Maritime).28

Countering Terror. NATO announced its “Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism: Aware, Capable and Engaged for a Safer Future,” at the Chicago Summit in 2012. NATO policy has been informed by 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks.29

Cyber. Like many member nations, NATO has been challenged by the emergence of cyber operations. Russian political warfare has a large cyber component, which has been overtly used against Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine and potentially used against national targets such as the Pentagon30 and U.S. Democratic National Committee.31 NATO made forward progress on developing cyber capabilities at the Wales Summit in 201432 and declared cyber to be a “domain” and announced further efforts to develop NATO capabilities while also assisting member nations to develop their own at the July 2016 Warsaw Summit.33

Paying Their Way. Much has been made over the subject of NATO Allies providing funding to the organization. Nations agreed to spend 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) per year in 2010. Although the combined GDP of the other members is larger than that of the United States, the U.S. defense expenditure represents 73 percent of NATO spending, much of which is dedicated to high-demand, low-density capabilities such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense, and airborne electronic warfare.34

National Caveats. There are ongoing complaints by some Allies that others impose politically driven limitations on their operations through the use of national caveats.35 During Operation Unified Protector, some nations positioned general and flag officers at the Combined Air Operations Center in Poggio Renatico, Italy. Their mission appeared to be to ensure that national caveats were respected. At times the development of the daily Air Tasking Order resembled a bidding session, where the NATO planners sought to generate sufficient strike capabilities to complete the mission.36 In spite of the use of national caveats, members always complete the mission. Although it sometimes requires the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe to convene a force generation conference37 or the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to call an occasional minister of defense with a request to waive a national caveat, NATO still managed to provide 40,000 personnel to the Afghanistan mission and generate enough strikes to complete the mission in Libya.

Russia. Russia regularly accuses NATO of aggression. The Russian Federation identified NATO as its first main external military risk in its military doctrine.38 NATO has identified 32 different Russian claims about Alliance enlargement, NATO’s attitude toward Russia, NATO as a threat, promises and pledges, and NATO operations, and has refuted each of them.39 NATO engaged Russia following the Cold War and the two cooperated regularly, reflected in both the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (May 17, 1997),40 and the announcement of the formation of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) at the Rome Summit on May 28, 2002.41 The NRC was formed to serve as the principal structure and venue for advancing the relationship between NATO and Russia;42 however, NRC operations were suspended in the wake of Russian actions in Ukraine in April 2014.43

NATO Today and Tomorrow

While it is easy to quantify what military assets NATO brings to the table, the Alliance provides ineffable qualities. Allies and partners form the international coalition of the willing, that is, nations who support similar goals such as democracy, free trade, and rule of law. These states work together at the United Nations in regional fora and on a bilateral basis in support of global norms that have provided unparalleled peace and prosperity to the world. The Alliance sets standards of behavior, concepts of operations, and equipment that are followed around the world. These member nations also provide excellent examples to other states around the world that seek to emulate their progress.

One of the most important responsibilities that NATO members can fulfill is the need to tell their populations why the Alliance is important and how NATO helps each of them maintain the independence and freedom that they currently enjoy. Many misunderstandings about NATO could be resolved with modest but effective public affairs and public diplomacy programs. This would make it easier to prevent attacks on NATO from within and would allow political leaders to make the case for spending 2 percent of GDP on NATO-usable equipment and formations.

Another imperative would be to study Russian political warfare. NATO members must understand what political warfare is and prepare to conduct counter–political warfare. Only then will NATO be resistant to outsider efforts to destroy the Alliance.

Although NATO has been a success, there is plenty of room for improvement. The ability to perform force generation has been an improvement; however, NATO has lost some of the capacity to perform modern force-on-force kinetic combat. This is particularly true of air defense, maritime operations, and combined arms operations integrating air, armor, and artillery. NATO should regularly exercise those capabilities.

Another lost art is generating and moving forces. At a recent conference about European defense, someone noted that the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), part of the NATO Response Force, deployed to Central Europe for an exercise on commercial aircraft, not using military airlift. This would cause problems if the VJTF were deploying into Poland or one of the Baltic states to reinforce a defense against Russia. Commercial companies would not be able to provide that type of transportation. Furthermore, NATO could no longer move military equipment and forces smoothly across European borders. During a recent deployment exercise, receiving nation customs and immigration officers stopped deploying forces at every border in order to clear them across. Since time is of the essence in a reinforcement scenario, NATO needs to develop the equivalent of a “Military Schengen Agreement” where forces are expedited across borders.

Dealing with infrastructure is another issue. During the Cold War, every bridge in West Germany was marked with a weight capacity and the Allies also had plans both to block and to cross all major rivers in their areas of operations. Bridges were built with chambers to facilitate the destruction in case of Russian attack, and bridging equipment was prepositioned to support crossing rivers heading east. Bridges in the Baltics and Poland are neither marked nor prepared for demolition, nor is equipment identified or prepositioned to facilitate crossing rivers. Although these seem like minor issues, they represent not only the conceptual underpinnings of combat but also the degradation of NATO capabilities across the board in air, maritime, and land operations.

NATO needs to return to the basics, dust off the old manuals from the Cold War, and think through what is really required to successfully defend Eastern Europe. Only then will NATO be able to provide a realistic deterrent to Russia.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the world’s most successful military alliance, but it finds itself under pressure from within and without. NATO countries need to reexamine their roles in NATO’s goal to safeguard the Allies’ freedom and security by political and military means via collective defense as well as understanding that there are global actors who seek to destroy the Alliance. NATO has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War. Many of those changes have been for the good, but some have not. Issues remain. Reorganizations and global deployments have improved NATO’s capabilities, but at a cost to the fundamental capability to perform high-end kinetic operations. Like the U.S. military, NATO has to recover from crisis management and regain capabilities lost during the last 15 years, while maintaining the lessons learned from what could be called the Crisis Management Era.

About the author:
*Dr. G. Alexander Crowther
is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University.

Source:
This article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly 83, which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes:
1 See “About NATO,” available at <https://nato.usmission.gov/our-relationship/about-nato/>.

2 “Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council,” May 30, 1997, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25471.htm?mode=pressrelease>.

3 “Study on NATO Enlargement,” September 3, 1995, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm?>.

4 Treaty of Washington, April 4, 1949, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm?>.

5 “Operations and Missions: Past and Present,” July 12, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

6 Ibid.

7 “Operation Unified Protector Final Mission Stats,” November 2, 2011, available at <www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_11/20111108_111107-factsheet_up_factsfigures_en.pdf>.

8 “Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan,” June 13, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_113694.htm>.

9 United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2189, S/Res/2189 (2014), December 12, 2014, available at <www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2189%20(2014)>.

10 UN Security Council Resolution 1244, S/Res/1244 (1999), June 10, 1999, available at <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement>.

11 Warsaw Summit Communiqué, Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8–9 July 2016, Paragraph 91, “We have transitioned Operation Active Endeavour, our Article 5 maritime operation in the Mediterranean, which has contributed to the fight against terrorism, to a non–Article 5 Maritime Security Operation, Operation Sea Guardian, able to perform the full range of Maritime Security Operation tasks, as needed.” Available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

12 “Operation Allied Provider,” September 30, 2014, available at <www.shape.nato.int/page13984631>.

13 “Counter-Piracy Missions,” July 12, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48815.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

14 European Union, “Countering Piracy off the Coast of Somalia,” available at <http://eunavfor.eu/>.

15 Combined Maritime Forces, “CTF 151: Counter-Piracy,” available at <https://combinedmaritimeforces.com/ctf-151-counter-piracy/>.

16 “Air Policing: Securing NATO Airspace,” June 29, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_132685.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

17 “Study on NATO Enlargement,” September 3, 1995, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm?>.

18 “Factsheet: NATO Enlargement & Open Door,” January 2016, available at <www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160120_1601-factsheet_enlargement-en.pdf>.

19 “10 Things you need to know about NATO,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm>; Macedonia is another example of the perceived fecklessness of some members. Greece refuses to accept the name, insisting on calling it the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM). Greek officers assigned to NATO go so far as to word search every document that they receive and provide feedback reminding authors of the requirement to call Macedonia “FYROM,” wasting a large amount of person-hours in bureaucratic wrangling.

20 Warsaw Summit Communiqué, paragraph 78.

21 “Cooperative Security as NATO’s Core Task: Building Security Through Military Cooperation Across the Globe,” last updated September 7, 2011, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77718.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

22 “Signatures of Partnership for Peace Framework Document,” January 10, 2012, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm>.

23 Ibid.

24 “Partners,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/51288.htm>.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 “NATO Organization,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/structure.htm>.

29 “Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism: Aware, Capable and Engaged for a Safer Future,” May 24, 2012, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_87905.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

30 Paul D. Shinkman, “Reported Russian Cyber Attack Shuts Down Pentagon Network,” U.S. News & World Report, August 6, 2015, available at <www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/06/reported-russian-cyber-attack-shuts-down-pentagon-network>.

31 Ruben F. Johnson, “Experts: DNC Hack Shows Inadequate U.S. Security Against Russian Cyber Attacks,” Washington Free Beacon, July 27, 2016, available at <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/experts-dnc-hack-shows-u-s-no-defense-russian-cyber-attacks/>.

32 “Cyber Defense,” July 27, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm>.

33 Warsaw Summit Communiqué, paragraphs 70 & 71.

34 “Funding NATO, Indirect Funding of NATO,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

35 General David Petraeus, USA, interview on Afghanistan, August 31, 2010: The Afghanistan mission “is certainly one team in which some of the different members have national caveats. . . . In Bosnia we had a matrix on the desk—I was the chief of operations there—and we had a matrix on the desk that had all the nations down one side and the missions and geographic areas across the top, and there were caveats, there were limits. That’s natural, actually, again, that’s the way these play out. I would point out though that virtually every one of the troop-contributing countries here has sustained tough losses and tough casualties, and indeed some of the smaller countries, if you look at their losses per capita, Denmark, for example. You’ll see again that there is a great sharing of the hardship and sacrifice in this effort, without question.” Available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_65854.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

36 The author was a special assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe at the time.

37 “Troop Contributions,” June 27, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50316.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

38 Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, December 25, 2014: “Build-up of the power potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting NATO with global functions carried out in violation of the rules of international law, bringing the military infrastructure of NATO member countries near the borders of the Russian Federation, including by further expansion of the alliance.” Available at <http://rusemb.org.uk/press/2029>.

39 “NATO-Russia Relations: The Facts,” December 17, 2015, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

40 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France, May 27, 1997, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm>.

41 “NATO-Russia Relations: A New Quality: Declaration by Heads of State and Government of NATO Member States and the Russian Federation,” May 28, 2002, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19572.htm>.

42 “The purpose of the [NATO-Russia Council] has been to serve as the principal structure and venue for advancing the relationship between NATO and Russia. Operating on the basis of consensus, it has sought to promote continuous political dialogue on security issues with a view to the early identification of emerging problems, the determination of common approaches, the development of practical cooperation, and the conduct of joint operations, as appropriate. Work under the [NRC] has focused on all areas of mutual interest identified in the Founding Act. New areas have been added to the NRC’s agenda by the mutual consent of its members.” See NATO-Russia Council, April 15, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50091.htm>.

43 Ibid.


An Utterly Shameful Representation Of The Malays? – OpEd

0
0

Analysing the events that happened — the humiliation of peaceful protesters, harassment, intimidation, terroristic-threats — leading to the 60,000-Yellow Shirt-BERSIH-Rally strong that ended peacefully in Kuala Lumpur, I have this to say about those who are out to misrepresent the Malays:

Aren’t Malaysians tired of seeing the Malays being represented as buffoons, stupid, amok-prone, close-minded, rempits, kris-kissing fools, AliBaba forty-thieves, rejects, religious fanatics, red-shirts, whatever shirts… it is a clever production and reproduction of the Malay ruling class, both feudal and wannabe-feudal… so that the Jebat aspect of the Malay – the amuck, the wannabe-sultan, the misogynic, the sex-maniac-royal groper and rapist of ancient Malacca, the royal-jet-setting-good-for-nothing-ancient-kings, the hedonistic, the grotesque epicure, the gangster, the absurd –is pushed forward and propagated to strengthen the Tuah aspect – the fool that followed the foolish orders of the foolish and idiotic Malacca sultan, the womaniser-cum-religious leader – the bad hombre of Malay culture – these are the twin representation of the Malays.

A laughing stock – the Malays are made to become.

This is what the ruling class wants to use as ‘Hitlerian Youth’. This image must be destroyed. For way too long the image of the Malay as wise, learned, philosophical, tassauwuf/sufistic being, the communicatively competent , the Old School pre-Merdeka Johor type, the prudent, the proverb-loving, the artistic, the high-cultured, a nation of high intellect and Jawi-literate Malay, the deeply perceptive and reflective, the viewer of materialism both as “rezeki/god’s bounty” to be careful with and to not let it be a corrupter of the soul, the Raja Haji-type of Malay (warrior who fought against the Dutch with bravery and with philosophy… where are you now, these Malays?

Aren’t we sick of the red-shirts’ antics and their representation of the Malays? a representation that has also been used successfully by the non-Malays – through the power of discourse of a newer Malay fascism hegemonising national perceptions?

Then there is the display of silat to ineffectively and hilariously scare people off.

Malays don’t need this representation as well. It was useful as a way for good, morally upright warriors of the 15th.century to kill their sultans, such as in the famous story of the death of the pervert and womanising and power-drunk sultan, Mahmud of Kota Tinggi, Johor. He was killed by his own Laksamana Megat Seri Rama while he was carried by his serfs on his mobile-throne, the ‘julang’, hence the story Mahmud Mangkat di Julang.

That evil-fool called a sultan killed the laksamana’s wife Dang Anum simply because she ate a piece of jackfruit (sebiji buah nangka) from the Raja’s orchard – because she was craving for it. She was pregnant. The raja ordered her stomach to be cut open to retrieve the jackfruit. That was the story of the Malay sultan worshipped by his people.

Laksamana Megat Seri Rama, skilled in silat, had to put the fool to death. Good for the sultan. That’s how a good silat man or woman ought to do – get rid of tyrants when while they are on their throne.

But strangeness we are seeing in the use of the Malay art of self-defense. Lost is the meaning of SILAT as I understood it – ‘silatur-rahim’ or to make peaceful connections with other human beings – with Chinese, Indians, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Martians, Jupiterians, Robots and Androids… or even Trump-supporters. SILATUR_RAHIM that is what it means. Some Malays don’t even understand the simple meaning of a Malay word.

Read… read… read…

If only each family inculcate the love of reading, of wisdom, of humility, of perspective-taking, of respecting others, of appreciating and learning from the arts, sciences, world music, and become a good global citizen – we will not need to do this in public: Beat each other up with planks while doing the breakdance. READ… READ… READ… in the name of thy Lord who created thee… that foundational verse “Iqra bismi rab bikal lazee khalaq”.

I’d say: stay home, take off your colored shirt, wear your singlet and your sarong/kain pelikat if you are still feeling hot and angry, help mum bake cookies, and read and read, read and be more intelligent in understanding what is ailing our society.

What a waste of time some these Malays are doing harassing people on the streets, storming buildings, running after cars, yelling incomprehensibles – all in the name of truth? What truth then?

How much money is being given to the cause of the rebellion without a real cause? This is the puzzling aspect of the red-shirt movement – why are they harassing those who wants to see a better Malaysia? A cleaner society and one that is not only for the Malays, or for the Muslims, or exclusively for the Malay-Muslims but a Malaysia for all Malaysians. Is that not a simple concept of good citizenship to comprehend and to fight for? I don’t think it is.

The way these troubles are created seem troubling and ‘out of place’ in a Malaysia – a globalised Malaysia of the 21st century. It seemed like a very awkward, rude, uncouched, uncultured way of exercising free speech. It seemed like a well-paid job done without rhyme or reason or sincerity. But the worst part is that it is claimed to be one “defending the rights of the Malays” when the Malays in general do not wish to be defended as such. It is a shameful way.

What ought to be done is to stop these grotesque ways of behaving and start the work of helping the Mat and Minah Rempits, the single mothers, the youth who are about to go into the dungeons of drug addiction, and the Malays who think that Tanah Melayu is theirs alone and others are “intruders in history” and ought to be sent back to where they came from.

These are the Malays that need to be helped and their dignity restored. That would be a nobler job for the red-shirt gang or any gang wearing whatever shirt yelling for Malay Rights. That is the jihad of peace the Malays in general would agree to be associated with.

Not the run-amuck, latah, and drunken Jebat and foolish Tuah Malays we no longer wish to see.

Let us help destroy this image of the Malays. We are not fools. We have never been.

Moroccan Monarch On Pilgrimage To Madagascar – OpEd

0
0

On November 20, King Mohammed VI arrived in Antananarivo for an official visit to Madagascar, the second leg of a tour that also led the Sovereign to Ethiopia, and which will also lead him to other African countries.

Upon his arrival at Ivato international airport, HM the King was greeted by President of the Republic of Madagascar, Hery Rajaonarimampianina.

The visit to Madagascar is not a surprise to anyone, as the Moroccan royal family enjoys close and historical relations with this country. In fact and in August 20, 1953 King Mohammed V (King Mohammed VI’s grandfather) and his family were exiled to Madagascar, where they remained for 3 years. In Nov. 16, 1955, the Sultan regained Morocco and was greeted by delirious crowds. On March 2, 1956, Morocco received its independence after active opposition to the French protectorate. In February 1956 he successfully negotiated with France for the independence of Morocco.

Hence, King Mohammed’s current official visit to Madagascar has a historical significance and will certainly be full of wonderful memories especially when the king will visit his grandfather and family residence in Antisrabe during the exile years. This Royal visit will also be an opportunity to show gratefulness to the Malagasy people who hosted the royal family in the 50’s.

It will also provide provide opportunity to consolidate further the historical longstanding relations binding Morocco and Madagascar and to give a new momentum to investments, both at the level of state-owned companies and at the level of the private sector.

Improving Veterans’ Overall Health And Academic Success

0
0

About two-thirds of veterans using Veterans Affairs Department education benefits earn a degree or complete a certificate or training program. The remaining third drop out, however, overcome by challenges in transitioning from service member to student.

Now a study led by a health services researcher at the University of California, Riverside offers a solution: peer-led services, which, the researcher says, are ideal for connecting student veterans to resources and healthcare services.

“Peer-led supportive services offer veterans a sense of community and have the potential to increase retention rates and help ensure academic success,” said Ann Cheney, an assistant professor in the Center for Healthy Communities in the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study that appears in the fall 2016 issue of Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action.

She explained that many university campuses already have supportive services for students.

“But these most often are neither veteran-initiated nor veteran-led,” she said. “Some veterans are deterred from accessing these services because of values and attitudes promulgated within the military, such as self-reliance and pride.”

The research paper stresses that veteran-led programs connect students with fellow veterans and veteran faculty members who share military experience.

“Such faculty members can help veteran students transition from the military’s rigid structure to that of a student, which tends to be more self-directed,” Cheney said. “By seeking help from VA and community providers and researchers, campus communities can play a vital role in improving veterans’ overall health and well-being and academic success.”

The study was conducted at six campuses in rural Arkansas to describe challenges and lessons learned in the first year of a VA/Student Partnership for Rural Veterans project. To develop veteran-to-veteran services, Cheney and her colleagues leveraged established community advisory boards. They also collaborated with student services, faculty with vested interest in veteran health, and leaders of student veteran organizations.

“Engaging veterans, campus leaders, and community stakeholders in grass-roots efforts to develop peer-led services and resources that are locally tailored to the needs of veterans can result in long-term collaborations and sustainable programs,” Cheney said. “Supportive services can help veterans transition into higher education and potentially set them up for academic success, but the evidence base still needs to be established. This study leads us one step closer to understanding the value of peer-led services for our most recent generation of veterans.”

Cheney sees the process of engagement described in the paper as an ideal way to engage members of at-risk student groups and the community to build partnerships to develop peer-led services for students in need of supportive services.

She was joined in the research by co-lead Justin Hunt and several researchers in Arkansas: Tracy H. Abraham, Angie Waliski, Shane Russell, and Cliff Hudson, at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock; Steve Sullivan, Dianne Swaim, and Caleb Lewis at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System Chaplain Services, North Little Rock; and Brian Candler and Sonya Hall at the VA/Student Partnership for Rural Veterans Community Partner.

The study, initiated in 2013, was supported by the VA Office of Rural Health and the South Central VA Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center.

A medical anthropologist with research experience in mental health and substance use health services, Cheney researches health disparities in underserved, primarily rural, populations, including women, veterans, ethnic and racial minorities, and immigrants.

NASA Close To Finishing Annual Study Of Changing Antarctic Ice

0
0

Operation IceBridge, NASA’s airborne survey of changes in polar ice, is closing in on the end of its eighth consecutive Antarctic deployment, and will likely tie its 2012 campaign record for the most research flights carried out during a single Antarctic season.

“We are probing the most remote corners of Spaceship Earth to learn more about changes that affect all of us locally, such as how ice sheets are contributing to sea level rise,” said NASA Deputy Administrator Dava Newman on her very first flight over Antarctica with the IceBridge team on Nov. 17. “At NASA we explore: not only space, but also our home planet.”

“Operation IceBridge is particularly well suited to measure changes in polar ice: it carries probably the most innovative and precise package of instruments ever flown over Antarctica,” Newman said.

“This campaign was possibly the best Antarctic campaign IceBridge has ever had,” said John Sonntag, IceBridge mission scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “We flew as many flights as we did in our best prior campaigns down here, and we certainly got more science return out of each flight than we have before, due to steadily improving instrumentation and also to some exceptionally good weather in the Weddell Sea that favored our sea ice flights.”

Antarctica is heading into austral summer, a period of rapid sea ice melt in the Southern Ocean. But this year the sea ice loss has been particularly swift and the Antarctic sea ice extent is currently at the lowest level for this time of year ever recorded in the satellite record, which began in 1979.

“We flew over the Bellingshausen Sea many times during this campaign and saw that areas that are typically covered by sea ice were just open water this year,” said Nathan Kurtz, IceBridge’s project scientist and a sea ice researcher at NASA Goddard. “It is a reminder that it is important that we continue the time series of IceBridge measurements in the area so that we can measure both changes in sea ice extent and in sea ice thickness to assess the future trajectory of the ice pack and its impact on the climate.”

IceBridge expanded its reach this year, covering a vast swath of Antarctica – from the Ruppert Coast in West Antarctica to Recovery Glacier in the eastern half of the continent, plus the Weddell and Bellingshausen seas. Additionally, IceBridge flew twice over the South Pole, an area rarely measured since satellites don’t overfly it.

During its six weeks of operations from its base in Punta Arenas, in the southernmost tip of Chile, IceBridge carried out 24 flights over Antarctica. In total, IceBridge’s airborne laboratory and team flew 308 hours.

“We are very satisfied that we flew all of our baseline flights and most of our high-priority ones,” said Joe MacGregor, IceBridge deputy project scientist and glaciologist at Goddard. “We flew to places we had never surveyed comprehensively before or had only flown once, like the Abbott Ice Shelf, and revisited some of our classic targets, like the ever-changing Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.”

One of this year’s missions flew over a massive rift in the Antarctic Peninsula’s Larsen C Ice Shelf. Ice shelves are the floating parts of ice streams and glaciers, and they buttress the grounded ice behind them; when ice shelves collapse, the ice behind accelerates toward the ocean, where it then adds to sea level rise. Larsen C neighbors a smaller ice shelf that disintegrated in 2002 after developing a rift similar to the one now growing in Larsen C.

The IceBridge scientists measured the Larsen C fracture to be about 70 miles long, more than 300 feet wide and about a third of a mile deep. The crack completely cuts through the ice shelf but it does not go all the way across it – once it does, it will produce an iceberg roughly the size of the state of Delaware.

“It’s a large rift on an ice shelf whose future we are curious about. Inevitably, when you see it in satellite imagery or from a plane, you wonder what is going to happen when it breaks off,” MacGregor said. “However, large icebergs calve from ice shelves regularly and they normally do not lead to ice-shelf collapse. The growth of this rift likely indicates that the portion of the ice shelf downstream of the rift is no longer holding back any grounded ice.”

As with every field season, IceBridge collaborated with other science teams: this year, IceBridge flew under one of ESA’s (the European Space Agency) CryoSat-2 satellite’s tracks and coordinated with a team from the British Antarctic Survey that was also conducting aerial surveys of the frozen continent.

“The British group began their campaign after we did, but targeted some of the areas we flew with a similar instrument suite. Once we process our data and they process theirs, we’ll be able to compare our measurements and combine them to form a better picture of Antarctica,” MacGregor said. “We also flew over their on-continent bases, providing them with images of nearby areas as they prepare their operations for this field season.”

During her stay in Punta Arenas, Newman met with Chilean researchers and students to discuss future opportunities with Chile.

“We love working with our Chilean colleagues: from the northern Atacama desert for astrobiology research to its southernmost city, Punta Arenas, to study Antarctic land and sea ice,” Newman said. “Given this strong partnership, we’re looking forward to exciting future collaborations.”

In addition to the NASA deputy administrator, IceBridge also welcomed U.S. Ambassador to Chile Carol Perez. Other guest participation included visitors from the State Department and U.S. Embassy in Chile; six U.S. teachers currently living and teaching in Chile; a Facebook representative; a visual artist; two photographers; and several journalists from various media outlets.

IceBridge researchers and Maggie Kane, a high school science teacher from Colorado who was embedded in the Antarctic campaign through the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States’ PolarTREC program, participated in 70 chats directly from the plane with classrooms in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Chile, reaching over 1,800 students. Kane also gave several talks on IceBridge’s research to Chilean students in Punta Arenas and Santiago.

UN And Islamic Conference To Counter Global Terrorism – Analysis

0
0

By J Nastranis

The UN Security Council members have affirmed the importance of enhancing cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in conflict prevention and counter-extremism, as well as the need for a comprehensive global counter-terrorism strategy supported by all regional partners.

In that regard, most speakers during an open debate of the UN Security Council on November 17 stressed “the importance of fighting terrorism, not only through security efforts, but also through development initiatives, conflict-resolution measures and the dissemination of voices challenging extremist ideology, including prominent religious voices”.

The United Nations has been working closely with the OIC for more than 20 years in promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and understanding though, according to the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Miroslav Jenca, this cooperation “has not been without challenges”.

Explaining the challenges, Jenca told the Security Council: “Resources, capabilities and mandates vary, and our memberships, although overlapping, are different. The strategies of the United Nations and the OIC, at times, may also be different.”

Speakers in the 15-member Security Council nevertheless called for “a stronger strategic partnership” between the UN and the OIC “on peace and security, particularly in relation to countering extremist ideology”.

The relationship between the two organizations was invaluable, given the magnitude and complexity of global challenges, said Jenca, during the Security Council meeting that also heard OIC Assistant Secretary General Hameed Opeleyeru and Columbia University professor Souleymane Bachir Diagne.

Opeloyeru described OIC and UN objectives as “broadly similar”, adding: “Both organizations are devoted to the cause of international peace, security and development and share common challenges in all domains of human endeavour.”

The OIC was a natural partner of the United Nations in countering terrorism and preventing violent extremism. Having adopted the Convention on Combating International Terrorism in 1999, the OIC had been among the first to formulate a clear and principled position against terrorism, he pointed out.

Among many such initiatives, Opeloyeru continued, the OIC was developing narratives to counter extremist ideologies by elevating credible and authentic religious voices supporting tolerance and non-violence. It had established the Centre for Dialogue, Peace and Understanding for that purpose and to expose the reality of terrorist groups claiming to belong to the Islamic faith.

The OIC looked forward to further engagement with the United Nations in addressing the immediate and future challenges facing the Muslim world, he added.

According to the Security Council’s coverage of the meeting, Diagne cautioned that, in the sound and fury of the violence unleashed in the name of religion, one might lose sight of the fact that it had its roots in the promotion of human values. He said the promotion of intercultural and interreligious dialogue must focus on the universal values that made human coexistence possible, including respect for universal human rights.

“Describing pluralism as a cornerstone in the promotion of peaceful coexistence, he said it was the authentic response to extreme violence. The OIC and the United Nations had a shared belief in advocating the unity of the human community and full respect for pluralism, he said, pointing out that Islamic texts also evoked pluralism.

“A core principle of Islam was that humankind was the lieutenant of God on earth and should therefore ensure the continual renewal of Creation, he emphasized,” stated the Security Council in its coverage of the meeting.

Speakers including the representatives of Angola, Uruguay and Malaysia encouraged the OIC to enhance efforts to promote tolerance within its various member States and around the world. In that regard, France’s representative highlighted the importance of all fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression. Many speakers underlined the importance of ensuring that terrorism was not associated with any one religion.

Underlining that there could be no differentiating between “good” and “bad” terrorists, the Russia’s representative said it was important to prevent terrorism by eliminating radicalism. Anti-terrorism efforts must be built upon the solid foundation of international law, he said, adding that attention must be paid not only to the military threat, but also to underlying causes, including conflict.

The representative of the United States suggested the appointment of a dedicated counter-terrorism coordinator to liaise with the OIC and other partners, in order to enhance cooperation in that field between the OIC and the United Nations.

Also speaking were representatives of Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, China, Venezuela, Egypt, Uruguay, Japan, Malaysia, France, New Zealand and Senegal.

According to a concept note prepared by the Senegalese presidency (document S/2016/965), the OIC is mindful that fighting terrorism requires a comprehensive and inclusive approach that takes realities on the ground into account.

The United Nations and the OIC have worked closely to restore peace and security in Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Darfur/the Sudan, Libya, Mali, Somalia and Yemen. They have also worked together on reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone and Somalia, the note states.

UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jenca highlighted how the two entities worked together closely in addressing challenges in several countries and regions: The UN and the OIC share common objectives in promoting and facilitating the Middle East peace process and the question of Palestine, he said.

On Yemen, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the UK Department for International Development and the OIC co-chaired a high-level event on the humanitarian situation in the country.

The UN appreciates the OIC’s support for a peace process in Afghanistan, whose realization is crucial for long-term growth and stability of the country, Jenca told the Security Council.

In Sudan, the partnership between the UN and the OIC remains an indispensable part of the collective effort of the international community to bring peace, security and development to that country. In Darfur, the core of that partnership has been the support of the OIC for the signing and the implementation of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur, he stated.

In Somalia, the UN and the OIC maintain a critical partnership in state-building as well as in promoting comprehensive peace and security. In Mali, the OIC was a member of the international mediation team during the 2014-15 inter-Malian dialogue and remains a committed member of the Agreement Monitoring Committee to this day.

The senior UN official added; During the electoral process in the Central African Republic (CAR) at the end of 2015, the OIC played an instrumental role in defusing tensions between rival political parties in the country.

In agreement with Chad, the OIC successfully called on the Front Populaire pour la Renaissance de la Centrafrique (FPRC) to cease hostilities in the CAR and allow for the elections to take place in areas that were under its influence.

The UN appreciates the OIC’s support to the political dialogue process in Libya, and the OIC has played a key role in Sierra Leone’s recovery efforts since the civil war there and, more recently, in the aftermath of the Ebola outbreak.

“Let us use this valuable Security Council meeting to reaffirm and deepen our common commitment to promoting peace, respect for human rights and offer of better opportunity for all the peoples of these regions and the world,” Jenca concluded.

OIC Assistant Secretary General Opeleyeru said: “We look forward to more engagement with UN to enhance the capacity of OIC on the basis of its needs and strategic priorities to enable it act as effective UN partner in addressing the immediate and future challenges that face the Muslim World. The UN-AU (African Union) example of partnership in the areas of peace, security and development is a good example to be followed in this regard.”

He concluded: “We would like to reiterate the pledge of the OIC to remain a strong and active partner with the UN to address mutual issues of interest and concern as well as current and future challenges in the defense and promotion of global peace, security and development.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images