Exactly five hundred years ago, in 1516, the renowned English statesman and social philosopher Sir Thomas More published “Utopia”, a novel in which he pictured an imaginary island where a totally just government had created the perfect society. More, however, was under no illusion that paradise is attainable in this wicked world – which is why the two Greek words from which “Utopia” is constructed translate as “nowhere.”

In the real world, where imperfect societies abound, it is certainly incumbent on everyone to strive to eliminate injustice and improve life for humanity in general. But it is also necessary to recognize who your friends are – imperfect though they may be – and which are the malign forces that seek global power and domination.

On December 6, 2016 Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, travelled to Bahrain to meet members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) gathered in the capital, Manama, for the organization’s 37th summit. The GCC, established in 1981, consists of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and comprises around 15 percent of the Arab world.

Individually the member states of the GCC are far from Utopia – some further than others. But collectively, and with certain reservations, they are friends of the West. Assuredly none seeks regional hegemony or world domination. Nonetheless when Theresa May’s visit was announced it aroused a storm of protest both within the UK and beyond.

Iran’s propaganda medium, PressTV, broadcasting in English around the clock, was quick to publicise the objections of the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), a UK-based hard-line Khomeneist non-governmental organisation. Earlier in 2016 this group bestowed their ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo. At their awards ceremony the IHRC joked about what a shame it was that none of the staff of Charlie Hebdo were around to collect it.

It is not likely, therefore, that Mrs May took much notice of the letter that arrived at 10 Downing Street, urging her to cancel her projected meeting with GCC Arab monarchies because it “shows a glaring disregard for human rights and also a dangerous message of approval to the leaders of GCC regimes who continue to perpetrate human rights abuses against their own and other citizens.”

It is no surprise that the IHRC took a swipe also at Saudi Arabia for the military coalition it is leading in Yemen, where it is countering the efforts of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels to overthrow the legitimate government. The Saudi effort is backed by the US and the UK. Also roundly condemned by the IHRC was Britain’s continued support for Saudi Arabia and Bahrain by way of weapons and intelligence.

The IHRC is playing the long-established game of using the tools of democracy to destabilise democracy itself. Amnesty International (AI) is a non-governmental organization founded in the UK in 1961 whose self-assigned purpose is to draw attention to human rights abuses, and to mobilise public opinion to put pressure on governments that let abuse take place. It is therefore to be expected that AI puts under scrutiny the value and independence of two UK-supported human rights institutions set up in Bahrain. The bodies, the Ombudsman of the Ministry of Interior, and the special investigations unit within the public prosecution, were established in 2012 following a fierce crackdown by the Bahraini government on protests the previous year.

Whereas the British Foreign Office believes the two institutions show the government in Manama is willing to respond to western pressure, and the then foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told the House of Commons in January 2015 that Bahrain was “a country which is travelling in the right direction”, AI’s head of policy and government affairs, Allan Hogarth, said: “It was a welcome move when Bahrain set up these two bodies back in 2012, but it’s utterly disingenuous of the UK government to pretend they’re delivering substantial human rights reform in Bahrain. Instead of acting as overexcited cheerleaders for Bahrain’s woefully inadequate reforms, UK ministers ought to be confronting the awkward reality that these UK-backed institutions are seriously flawed and widely seen as a PR tool of the Bahraini government.”

Amnesty International is fulfilling its self-imposed remit by pressing Bahrain to improve human rights within the kingdom. It can do nothing about an outside pressure group like the IHRC, with its strong Iranian links, jumping on the bandwagon for its own, less savoury, purposes.

An important aspect of Theresa May’s visit to the Gulf has been to rebuild relations with the Middle East, following the truly disastrous results of the Obama administration’s policies in the region. Obama began his presidency by trying to reassure the Muslim world of America’s respect for Islam and his intention to avoid its past “colonialist” interference. He ended by having empowered the Arab world’s greatest enemy, Iran, through the deal that ensures that Iran will become a nuclear power within 10-15 years. He consistently supported the Muslim Brotherhood, declared a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. His refusal to engage wholeheartedly against the enemies of stability in the Middle East, such as President Assad of Syria and Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq, left a power vacuum which Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was quick to fill. As a result confidence in, not to say respect for, the USA has been severely shaken in the Arab world.

As regards the UK, the Gulf states, always strongly Anglophile, found their sympathies severely strained by the British government’s support for the Iran deal. If in the future Theresa May takes a more hardline approach towards Iran, she would ease this tension – and indeed she is likely to do so, if only to align British foreign policy with that of President-elect Trump.

With foreign policy hawks such as General Mike Flynn, Trump’s new National Security Advisor, occupying senior posts in the next administration, the Iran deal – or at least the way it is currently being administered – is unlikely to survive. Amending the Iran deal, or at least imposing rigorous compliance with its terms on Iran, would help Washington repair relations with traditional allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of Israel, alienated by Obama’s pro-Iranian policies.

It seems pretty certain that a reconfiguration of relations between the West and the Arab world is in the offing. Utopia it will not be, but it may result in a more harmonious and balanced situation in which friends are supported, and malign forces are opposed not appeased.

Without mincing my words I will prefer to call the recent agreement of OPEC and non-OPEC members to cut output ‘an agreement of thugs to rip off consumers’. They have agreed to cut output, but still don’t trust each other. They even go to the extent of calling each other ‘cheaters’. Therefore, some of the members are most likely not to abide any production limited. Business will continue as usual because energy consumption will increase with the commencement of winter. In other words, the level of consumption will remain dependent on the drop of mercury level.

Let me explain my assertion that the US and Saudi Arabia were partners in taking oil prices up to US$147/barrel. In fact Saudi Arabia fell in the trap because it was overwhelmed by the hike in price. Although, I just can’t resist from saying that Saudi Arabia did not bother to look at the number of rigs operating, which exceeded 1,900 at one time. The quantum increase in US shale output helped the country (US) in becoming self sufficient in indigenous oil production. The US is no longer dependent on imported oil, though it is still importing low cost oil from Saudi Arabia.

In my previous articles I have discussed different themes that included 1) pressure on Iran to cut output 2) Saudi Arabia asked to make the biggest cut? 3) Iran not a threat to Saudi Arabia but US Shale, certainly 4) attempts to penalize Iran and Russia have backfired. The scenario prevailing since 2014 can be summed up in one sentence: ‘Saudi Arabia kept on pumping maximum oil to maintain its market share.’ It may have succeeded in maintaining the share, but petro income nose-dived, leading to extensive borrowing.

After the withdrawal of sanctions imposed on Iran, Saudi Arabia felt jittery and feared losing its substantial market share. It completely ignored another harsh reality that due to over three decades of economic sanction, Iran’s output could not be increased. Though, economic sanctions were also imposed on Russia, it managed to take its output above 11 million barrels lately. That is the reason it convinced Saudi Arabia to agree to cut output because it believes that collectively the two countries (Russia and Saudi Arabia) now enjoy power to maneuver oil prices. Both of them want to ensure that Shale production does not increase above a certain level.

I will also say that geopolitics play a key role in the supply of oil. Some of the most obvious examples are Nigeria, Libya and Iraq. As and when a reduction is desired, output in these countries is disturbed. This time the issue of a pipeline in the US has also affected shale output. Therefore, the readers may also agree with me that oil output and its prices are controlled by a few thugs; they may appear to be foes, but they have common agenda, to keep the world under their control.

By Jeremy M. Sharp*

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and members of a coalition1 it established (hereinafter referred to as the Saudi-led coalition) launched a military operation aimed at restoring the rule of Yemen’s internationally recognized President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Prior to the start of hostilities, Hadi’s government had been gradually supplanted by an alliance comprised of the Iran- supported2 Houthi movement3 and loyalists of the previous President, Ali Abdullah Saleh (hereinafter referred to as Houthi-Saleh forces).

As Houthi forces advanced on the southern city of Aden, Saudi Arabia and members of a coalition launched air strikes in response to a specific request from President Hadi “to provide instant support by all necessary means, including military intervention to protect Yemen and its people from continuous Houthi aggression and deter the expected attack to occur at any hour on the city of Aden and the rest of the southern regions, and to help Yemen in the face of Al Qaeda and ISIL.”4 Saudi leaders reportedly are concerned that reported Iranian support for Houthi fighters will result in the creation of a Hezbollah-like threat on its southwestern border.

After 20 months of war, battle lines in Yemen have hardened. The Saudi-led coalition has retaken the port city of Aden and the lowland areas of southern Yemen (traditionally Sunni). Houthis- Saleh forces remain ensconced in the capital Sana’a and the mountainous highlands of northern Yemen (traditionally Zaydi5). In fact, the lines of control now somewhat resemble the previous division of Yemen into two separate countries, a political situation that lasted from 1918 to 1990.

By August 2016, the United Nations estimated that the war had killed at least 10,000 people.6 According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, there were 3,980 civilian casualties from the start of hostilities through September 2016.7 The war has taken a devastating toll on the population in a country long-considered the least developed in the Middle East and one of the poorest in the world. The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is severe, with 80% (21.2 million) of Yemen’s population in need of humanitarian assistance. According to the World Health Organization, documented cases of cholera have reached over 1,400 due to damage to infrastructure and lack of access to clean water and sanitation. UNICEF estimates that 14 million Yemenis are malnourished, and that 370,000 children are estimated to be severely malnourished or starving, particularly in rural areas.8 According to the World Food Program, almost half of all children in Yemen are stunted in growth due to chronic malnutrition. Since the outbreak of hostilities, the Saudi-led coalition has enforced a maritime blockade of Yemen, which was authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2216.

As of November 2016, fighting continues throughout the country, most notably in and around the following.

• Taiz. Yemen’s third largest city, Taiz (pre-war population of 300,000), continues to witness fierce fighting. Forces aligned with the coalition control most of Taiz city, but its environs are largely sealed off by Houthi-Saleh forces that surround the city on three sides. Houthi-Saleh forces only periodically permit humanitarian aid to reach city residents, and over 80% of the city’s hospitals are closed. The city has been under siege since September 2015, and the humanitarian situation is dire, with reports of skyrocketing food prices and even starvation.9
• Saudi-Yemeni Border. In the far north along the Yemeni-Saudi border, Houthi- Saleh forces continue to target the kingdom. In the Saudi provinces of Najran and Jizan, Houthi-Saleh forces have launched offensives into Saudi territory and Scud and other ballistic missiles into Saudi territory and at coalition forces inside Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates each have multiple U.S.- supplied Patriot missile batteries protecting their respective forces.
• Marib Province. Bordering the capital province of Sana’a to the east, Marib governorate and city are strategically important areas that the Saudi-led coalition seeks to control. Marib province is where the country’s main refinery is located, along with one of its two main oil pipelines. Houthi-Saleh forces have been attacking the Marib tribes and coalition forces. In late July 2016, two Saudi pilots were killed in Marib when their Apache helicopter crashed. The helicopter crash marked the first time the Saudi military acknowledged it had lost any aircraft in the war. Saudi Arabia maintains an air base north of Marib city.
• Sana’a (Yemen’s Capital). From April 2016 to August 2016, the Saudi-led coalition had largely spared Sana’a from aerial strikes as part of its commitment to the cessation of hostilities. When U.N.-mediated peace talks collapsed in August 2016, the Saudi-led coalition resumed bombing.

Prospects for a Political Solution

Despite multiple attempts by U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to broker a peace agreement, the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi-Saleh forces continue to disagree on the fundamentals of a political settlement. In late October 2016, the U.N. Envoy presented another peace plan to both sides. According to various reports, the Envoy’s road map to peace included the following:10

• gradually transferring presidential power to either a new prime minister and/or vice president (the presidency would then become mostly a ceremonial position),
• the formation of a national unity government,
• gradually removing Houthi-Saleh forces from cities seized between 2014 and
  2015,
• the formation of an international observation mission to verify Houthi withdrawal, and
• gradually transitioning toward presidential and parliamentary elections.

President Hadi rejected this plan. He claims that his abdication would legitimize Houthi-Saleh forces’ capture of the capital, which Hadi calls a coup. Hadi also calls for Houthi-Saleh forces to relinquish their heavy weaponry (including ballistic missiles and launchers). Saudi Arabia demands that the Houthi-Saleh forces relinquish these weapons to a third party, and insists on a guarantee that a new unity government would prohibit the deployment of weapons that can threaten international waterways or Saudi territory. For their part, Houthi-Saleh forces seek Hadi’s resignation and require an immediate formation of a unity government in which they play a significant role. They also seek to integrate their militiamen into the nation’s armed forces.

On November 14, Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Oman, where he again tried to broker a new cessation of hostilities that would open the door toward renewed peace negotiations. After his visit, Secretary Kerry announced that Houthi-Saleh forces had agreed to “abide by the terms of the April 10 cessation of hostilities beginning on Nov. 17, provided the other party implements the same commitment.”11 Days later, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abdel-Malek al Mekhlafi said: “I believe the current U.S. administration is incapable of providing any guarantees to any party and what Kerry has said is no more than a media bubble at our people’s expense.”12

Political dynamics on the ground in Yemen are obstructing outside forces’ efforts to bring the current conflict to a close. It seems that even Saudi Arabia, President Hadi’s primary benefactor, cannot currently compel its Yemeni allies to reach a compromise deal. Neither President Hadi nor his vice president, General Ali Mohsen al Ahmar, a powerful military commander who is a rival to both former president Saleh and the Houthis, is ready to resign or gradually transition out of power. President Hadi claims that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2216 legitimizes his rule since it calls on all parties to refrain from taking any actions that undermine the legitimacy of the President of Yemen. There is some concern that even if the Saudi-led coalition abandoned the current president and vice president, it would not stop their associated militias from continuing the war.

At the same time, the status quo is problematic for the Saudi-led coalition. In late July 2016, Houthi-Saleh forces established their own alternative government, an unacceptable outcome for both the Saudis and the international community, which seek to maintain Yemen’s unity. For Houthi-Saleh forces, it seems their strategy is to survive, ensconced in the capital, in order to create facts on the ground. In the meantime, it would seem that continued Saudi-led coalition airstrikes targeting civilians, combined with Yemen’s dire humanitarian crisis, is increasing international criticism of the Saudi-led military operation.

With a political settlement seemingly distant, some analysts are calling for alternative arrangements. According to Bruce Riedel, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, “de facto partition may be the only realistic option for the foreseeable future. The international community should try to persuade the warring parties to adopt an open-ended cease-fire without conditions. Then a massive surge of humanitarian relief should begin.”13

Humanitarian Situation

In a country with chronic natural resource and food shortfalls, Yemen is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. In his latest briefing to the United Nations Security Council, the Under- Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Stephen O’Brien, said, “This humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen is a man-made disaster, where conflict has exacerbated and exponentially increased the suffering of the 50 per cent of the Yemeni population who already were in dire and extreme poverty.”14

Public health figures and statistics indicating the degree of human suffering are stark.

• As of August 2016, there are over 2.2 million internally displaced in persons in Yemen.15
• Since March 2015, 10,000 children under the age of five have perished from preventable diseases such as diarrhea and pneumonia.16
• As of August 2016, the United Nations funding requirement for Yemen has reached $1.63 billion, of which donors have pledged only 43%.17 Prior to the start of the hostilities in March 2015, humanitarian funding needs were less than half the current figure.

The Coalition’s Maritime Blockade and Delivery of Emergency Aid

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2216 authorizes member states to prevent the transfer or sale of arms to the Houthis or to former President Saleh and also allows Yemen’s neighbors to inspect cargo suspected of carrying arms to Houthi fighters. Iran reportedly continues to support Houthi militias with weapons shipments, fueling the desire of the Saudi-led coalition to thwart Iranian weapons smuggling by sea. However, while the coalition’s naval blockade has periodically intercepted Iranian arms shipments, it also has slowed the delivery of humanitarian aid. Near the Red Sea port city of Hodeida, which is controlled by Houthi-Saleh forces, ships filled with food and fuel routinely sit off-shore, as Arab coalition vessels search them for illicit arms.18

The UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism (UNVIM) is a UN-led operation designed to inspect incoming sea cargo to Yemen for illicit weapons. UNVIM can inspect cargo, while also ensuring that humanitarian aid is delivered in a timely manner. Its participants are the European Union, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

While UNVIM has cleared nearly 200 commercial vessels at Hodeida and other ports, hundreds of thousands of metric tons of food await offloading. Port operations at Hodeida have been damaged by Saudi-led coalition airstrikes, and disputes between Houthi-Saleh authorities and shippers over customs fees further hampers the delivery of aid.19

Yemen’s Banking Crisis

Approximately a quarter of all Yemenis’ livelihoods depend on the salary of a public sector employee. Government salaries are paid by the Central Bank, which, throughout the current conflict, had managed to stay relatively apolitical. However, after the August 2016 breakdown in peace talks, President Hadi moved the Central Bank’s operations to Aden, accusing Houthi-Saleh forces of adding thousands of militiamen to the Ministry of Defense’s payroll, which had been drawing down $100 million a month in foreign reserves.24 As of September 2016, total reserves had dwindled to $1.3 billion from about $4 billion in November 2014.

As a result of the Central Bank’s relocation, the payment of government salaries in Houthi-Saleh- controlled areas was halted, exacerbating already difficult living conditions for tens of thousands of Yemenis. Houthi-Saleh authorities had already reduced salaries for their fighters. In late September 2016, the U.S. State Department expressed concern about the “economic conditions in Yemen and recent developments associated with the Central Bank,” stressing the importance of the Central Bank serving the interests of all Yemenis.25

Transnational Terrorist Groups Operating in Yemen

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

The Obama Administration has described Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) as “the most active and dangerous affiliate of al-Qa’ida today,”26 with “several thousand adherents and fighters” inside of Yemen.27 The group has operated in Yemen since 2009, and has been the most active in the southern provinces that were formerly part of the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, which reunited with northern Yemen in 1990. After unification, political and economic power became concentrated in the hands of northern leaders and tribes, and AQAP has benefitted from southern resentment directed against the government. According to the State Department’s 2015 Country Reports on Terrorism, AQAP has continued to take advantage of the political and security vacuum created by the ongoing fighting between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi- Saleh forces. The conflict between these forces has contributed to AQAP’s attempted expansion in the southern and eastern parts of Yemen since 2015.

Perhaps more than any other AQ affiliate, AQAP has attempted to carry out attacks in the United States and Europe. Between 2009 and 2012, AQAP was behind three attempts to down U.S.- bound commercial airliners, and officials note that the group likely “still harbors this intent and substantial capability to carry out such a plot.”28 In early 2015, AQAP claimed to have directed and funded the attack against the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris.29

The Defense Department reported that U.S. strikes had killed approximately 81 AQAP members in Yemen in the first half of 2016.30 In June 2015, a U.S. strike killed AQAP leader Nasser al Wuhayshi. In April 2016, “small numbers” of U.S. military personnel were authorized to deploy to Yemen to support operations against AQAP.31 U.S. military officials confirmed in May 2016 that some U.S. military personnel had returned to Yemen and were operating in a liaison capacity out of the port city of Al Mukalla.32

The Islamic State

The Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL, ISIS, or the Arabic acronym Da’esh) claims to have several provinces operating in Yemen, where it has targeted Zaydi Shi’a, including their mosques. These types of attacks may increase sectarian tension in Yemen, which, though wracked by war, has not traditionally had the kind of sectarian animosity that has plagued states such Iraq and Lebanon. Leadership and tactical disputes appear to have limited the Yemen-based IS affiliates’ success to date, as has competition from rivals in the larger and more deeply rooted AQAP organization.

U.S. Policy

As the conflict in Yemen has continued, the Administration’s position has moved away from strongly supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s campaign and the restoration of Hadi’s presidency and toward a more nuanced approach.

The Administration has called for a political settlement that the parties themselves negotiate, emphasizing that “we’re on the side squarely of the Yemeni people,”33 while also stressing that Saudi Arabia itself is under daily attack and has a right to defend itself.

The Administration seeks to work multilaterally through the United Nations to pursue a cease-fire that ultimately jumpstarts negotiations toward a comprehensive political settlement to the conflict. In late August, Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Saudi Arabia, where he proposed a new peace initiative calling for the Houthis to withdraw from the capital, while having their heavy weapons and ballistic missiles transferred to a third party.

Overall, the Administration, like Saudi Arabia, does not want to see Houthi fighters who receive Iranian aid rule large swaths of Yemen. Additionally, some lawmakers see Iranian support for Houthi-Saleh forces as increasing, and therefore reiterate the need to counter Iran’s regional meddling.34 However, as the civilian death toll continues to climb and the humanitarian situation devolves, some observers assert that the political costs of the Saudi-led coalition’s military campaign are becoming too high. According to Senator Chris Murphy in September 2016, “US support for Saudi Arabia’s wars cannot be unconditional, especially when civilians are being killed and terrorist organizations are growing stronger.”35

International Scrutiny and U.S. Policy Debates

As the military campaign has continued, reports of civilian casualties and displacement; food, medicine, and water shortages; attacks on international shipping and U.S. military vessels; advances by AQAP forces; Islamic State attacks; and persistence by the Houthis and their pro- Saleh allies have fueled intensifying international criticism of Saudi policy. Congress has debated the provision of U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia in the context of the conflict, and the Senate in September considered (and ultimately rejected) a proposal that would have blocked a proposed sale of tanks to the kingdom.

In the wake of an October 2016 Saudi airstrike on a funeral hall in Sanaa that killed between 130 and 150 people, the Obama Administration announced that it was initiating a review of U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said,

U.S. security cooperation with Saudi Arabia is not a blank check. Even as we assist Saudi Arabia regarding the defense of their territorial integrity, we have and will continue to express our serious concerns about the conflict in Yemen and how it has been waged. In light of this and other recent incidents, we have initiated an immediate review of our already significantly reduced support to the Saudi-led Coalition and are prepared to adjust our support so as to better align with U.S. principles, values and interests, including achieving an immediate and durable end to Yemen’s tragic conflict. We call upon the Saudi-led Coalition, the Yemeni government, the Houthis and the Saleh-aligned forces to commit publicly to an immediate cessation of hostilities and implement this cessation based on the April 10th terms.36

Price’s reference to “already significantly reduced” U.S. support for Saudi Arabia may allude to the withdrawal in June 2016 of many U.S. personnel assigned to a joint U.S.-Saudi planning cell that had been established to coordinate the provision of military and intelligence support for the campaign.37 Administration officials have not publicly offered details of the precise nature and extent of current U.S. logistical and intelligence support for Saudi military operations in Yemen. On October 12, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that “this assistance that we provide is primarily logistical support. We do share some intelligence with them, but the United States does not do targeting for them. The Saudis and their partners use some of the intelligence that we have collected, but they make their own targeting decisions.”38

On October 31, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power said in a U.N. Security Council meeting on Yemen that “the United States calls on the parties to recommit immediately to the cessation of hostilities, which means halting all military actions on the ground, in the air, and at sea. That includes an end to shelling and an end to airstrikes.”40 Ambassador Power condemned Saudi-led coalition strikes on civilian targets and Yemeni infrastructure and condemned cross border attacks on Saudi Arabia by its adversaries in Yemen, including recent ballistic missile attacks.

Yemen: Recent Attacks Against U.S. Naval Vessels in the Red Sea

In recent weeks, the United States has faced a number of challenges regarding the Yemen war. In October 2016, Houthi-Saleh forces reportedly launched anti-ship missiles at U.S. Navy vessels on patrol off the coast of Yemen. While no U.S. warship was damaged, a similar attack earlier in October damaged a U.S. transport ship leased by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The attacks against the U.S. ships marked the first time U.S. forces had come under direct fire in the near 20-month war.

The attacks may have been triggered by Saudi-led coalition airstrikes on October 8 that struck a funeral gathering of Houthi leaders in the capital Sana’a. Those strikes, which the coalition later described as having been mistakenly authorized, killed many civilians and prominent Houthi political and military leaders. Included among the casualties was the mayor of Sana’a, two Yemeni members of the U.N. cease-fire monitoring team, and several Houthi-Saleh high-ranking officers.

Such events in Yemen have elicited a multi-pronged Administration response. On the military front, the Administration responded to the attacks against U.S. naval vessels by firing cruise missiles against Houthi-Saleh radar installations. The Administration claims that those attacks were conducted in self-defense and has indicated that it does not want to deepen its direct involvement in the conflict. The October 8 Saudi airstrikes drew immediate condemnation and prompted the Administration to initiate an “immediate review” of U.S support for the Saudi-led coalition’s military campaign. U.S. support had already been reduced in the preceding months amid concern that the coalition’s repeated targeting of civilians was a violation of international law. From a diplomatic angle, the Obama Administration accelerated its efforts to broker a ceasefire in the hopes of deescalating the situation.

The rapid progression of events in Yemen from early to mid-October has forced the Administration to deepen its involvement in the Yemen conflict by

• deploying more naval assets to the Bab al Mandab to protect international shipping;
• attempting to deescalate tensions between combatants in order to restart negotiations; and
• delaying further U.S. support to the Saudi-led coalition out of increased concern regarding civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes.

U.S. Foreign Assistance to Yemen

Since the current conflict began in March 2015, the United States has increased its humanitarian assistance to Yemen while suspending nearly all other programming. On February 11, 2015, due to the deteriorating security situation in Sana’a, the Department of State suspended embassy operations and U.S. Embassy staff was relocated out of the country.

Since March 2015, the United States continues to be the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to Yemen. Funds were provided to international aid organizations from USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), USAID’s Food for Peace (FFP), and the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (State/PRM).

U.S. bilateral economic funding supports basic education, maternal health, and agricultural assistance programs. Given the breakdown of Yemen’s military, assistance channeled through the State and Defense Departments has been suspended. In June 2015, the Department of Defense notified Congress that it was redirecting $45.04 million worth of military equipment (obligated in FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014) to Tunisia, Jordan, and Lebanon.

About the author:
* Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Source:
This article was published by CRS as CRS Report Nov. 16, 2016 (PDF). The article has been slightly edited.

Notes:
1 The coalition includes Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, and Senegal. The Saudi-led coalition also relies on local Yemeni forces to carry out ground operations. These allied units comprise a mix of army units, tribal forces, Islamist militias, and southern separatists opposed to Houthi rule.
2 The degree of Iran’s military role in Yemen is a subject of much debate. Iran has been caught on multiple occasions attempting to smuggle weapons to the Houthis (see below). In repeated public statements by high level Saudi officials, Saudi Arabia has seized upon Iran’s illicit support for the Houthis as proof that Iran is to blame for the Yemen conflict. In fact, Saudi officials frequently justify their intervention in Yemen as a defensive action in order to prevent “the country [Yemen] being taken over by a radical militia [Houthis] allied with Iran and Hezbollah.” Overall, Iranian support to the Houthis provides the clerical regime with a relatively low cost way of countering Saudi influence in Yemen. However, many Western observers generally agree that Iranian aid to the Houthis does not match the scale of its commitments to proxies in other parts of the Middle East, such as in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. In April 2015, National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan remarked that “It remains our assessment that Iran does not exert command and control over the Houthis in Yemen.” See, “Iran Warned Houthis Against Yemen Takeover,” Huffington Post, April 20, 2015
3 The Houthi movement (also known as Ansar Allah or Partisans of God) is a predominantly Zaydi Shiite revivalist political and insurgent movement that formed in the northern province of Sa’da in 2004 under the leadership of members of the Houthi family. It originally sought an end to what it viewed as efforts to marginalize Zaydi communities and beliefs, but its goals grew in scope and ambition in the wake of the 2011 uprising and government collapse to embrace a broader populist, anti-establishment message. Skeptics highlight the movement’s ideological roots, its alleged cooperation with Iran, and the slogans prominently displayed on its banners: “God is great! Death to America! Death to Israel! Curse the Jews! Victory to Islam!”
4 Text of Hadi request letter in “GCC statement: Gulf countries respond to Yemen developments,” The National (UAE), March 26, 2015.
5 Yemen’s Zaydis take their name from their fifth Imam, Zayd ibn Ali, grandson of Husayn. Zayd revolted against the Ummayad Caliphate in 740, believing it to be corrupt, and to this day, Zaydis believe that their imam (ruler of the community) should be both a descendent of Ali (the cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad) and one who makes it his religious duty to rebel against unjust rulers and corruption. A Zaydi state (or Imamate) was founded in northern Yemen in 893 and lasted in various forms until the republican revolution of 1962. Yemen’s modern imams kept their state in the Yemeni highlands in extreme isolation, as foreign visitors required the ruler’s permission to enter the kingdom. Although Zaydism is an offshoot of Shia Islam, its legal traditions and religious practices are similar to Sunni Islam. Moreover, it is doctrinally distinct from “Twelver Shiism,” the dominant branch of Shi’a Islam in Iran and Lebanon.
6 “U.N. says 10,000 Killed in Yemen war, far more than other Estimates,” Reuters, August 30, 2016.
7 Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, September 23, 2016.
8 “More than One Million Children Starve as Yemen War Rages—U.N. agencies,” Reuters, October 28, 2016.
9 “Yemen: ‘Some people are living on one piece of bread a day’,” The Guardian, June 8, 2016.
10 “UN Envoy to Yemen hands peace plan outline to rival parties,” Associated Press, October 25, 2016.
11 “Kerry announces Yemen Cessation of Hostilities to start November 17, Reuters, November 15, 2016.
12 “Yemen’s Houthis say they want to End War, form Unity Government,” Reuters, November 16, 2016.
13 “Is Yemen headed for Partition?” Al Monitor, October 31, 2016.
14 Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Stephen O’Brien Statement to the Security Council on Yemen, October 31, 2016.
15 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/yemen_ce_fs01_10-27-2016.pdf. 16 Stephen O’Brien Statement, op. cit.
17 Financial Tracking Service, Yemen : Funding received 2016.
18 “Arab Coalition Navy Inspections Paralyze Yemen Food Shipments,” Reuters, September 10, 2015. Reportedly, the United States has said that commercial vessels off the coast of Yemen should only be inspected when there are “reasonable grounds” to suspect illicit arms shipments. See, “U.S. tells U.N. it Wants to See Boost in Shipping into War-Torn Yemen,” Reuters, September 30, 2015.
19 Stephen O’Brien Statement, op. cit.
20 “U.S. Officials: Iran Supplying Weapons to Yemen’s Houthi Rebels,” NBC News, October 27, 2016.
21 “US intercepts Multiple Shipments of Iranian Weapons going to Houthis in Yemen,” CNN, October 28, 2016.
22 “Weapons Bound for Yemen Seized on Iran Boat: Coalition,” Reuters, September 30, 2015.
23 “Exclusive: Iran steps up Weapons Supply to Yemen’s Houthis via Oman—Officials,” Reuters, October 20, 2016.
24 “Central Bank Crisis Risks Famine in Yemen,” International Crisis Group, September 29, 2016.
25 Office of the Spokesperson, U.S. State Department, Communique on the Situation in Yemen, September 22, 2016.
26 The White House, Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Regarding the War Powers Resolution, June 13, 2016.
27 Transcript, CIA Director John Brennan before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, June 16, 2016.
28 Testimony of former NCTC Director Matthew Olsen before the House Homeland Security Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, Joint Hearing on Terrorism Outlook, November 18, 2015.
29 “Al Qaeda in Yemen Claims Responsibility for Charlie Hebdo Attack,” Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2015. 30 U.S. Defense Department, “Centcom Announces Yemen Counterterrorism Strikes,” June 3, 2016.
31 The White House, Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Regarding the War Powers Resolution, June 13, 2016.
32 Department of Defense Press Briefing by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook in the Pentagon Briefing Room, May 9, 2016.
33 John Kirby, Spokesperson, U.S. State Department, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, November 1, 2016.
34 “Senate Tacitly Endorses U.S. Role in Yemen War, Al Monitor, September 21, 2016.
35 “Senator Chris Murphy: US support for Saudi Arabia ‘can’t be unconditional,’” Guardian (UK), September 22, 2016.
36 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by NSC Spokesperson Ned Price on Yemen, October 8, 2016.
37 Reuters, “U.S. withdraws staff from Saudi Arabia dedicated to Yemen planning,” August 19, 2016.
38 White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Press Briefing, October 12, 2016.
39 “U.S. Support for Saudi Strikes in Yemen Raises War Crime Concerns,” Foreign Policy.com, October 15, 2016.
40 Remarks at a UN Security Council Briefing on Yemen by U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, New York City, October 31, 2016.
41 U.N. Document A/70/836–S/2016/360, Children and Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, April 20, 2016.
42 Somini Sengupta, “United Nations Chief Exposes Limits to His Authority by Citing Saudi Threat, “ New York Times, June 9, 2016.
43 Secretary-General’s remarks to Security Council Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict, August 2, 2016. 44 U.N. Document A/HRC/33/38, Situation of Human Rights in Yemen, August 4, 2016

International Relations focuses more on war than peace. Since the breakup of the USSR conflicts have taken less lives. The reports in the media are exaggerated.

One of the many dimensions of conflicts today, especially ethno-national, is that it is one of the biggest challenge to the national security of all nation states that are grappling with it. According to statistics, (Horowitz), since 1945, millions of lives have been lost due to such conflicts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had opined that a lot of nations will be born in bloodshed.

Such has been the outreach of ethno-national conflicts. Historically the notorious Nazi leader’s ethnic cleansing madness changed the history and geography of geopolitics forever. To develop deeper insights it is important to understand the concept of nation first. Wolfe defined a nation as a concept denoting a common ethnic and cultural identity shared by a ‘single people’. As per the Primordialist approach to understanding nationalism, common dissent plays a very important role in determining ethno-national conflict.

After the Gulf War, President of the US George Bush first introduced the new world order to other states. With the new world order came Ethno National Conflicts as collateral damage, to pre-existing history of violence, territorial dispute etc. Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Burundi, Quebec changed the geopolitical dynamics of ethno-national conflicts as we witness today.

Strategic realignments have undergone significant changes in the last one odd decade. With the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 the fulcrum of power shifted inexorably towards the United States (US). However the fear of spread of communist ideology even as the cold war was on led to a massive increase in ethno-national conflicts all across the globe. This type of conflict arises essentially out of the identity crisis faced by ethnic groups asserting a separate identity for them, to protect the interests of their community. The Tamils in Sri Lanka for example wanted a separate Eelam state for themselves. After the death of their leader Prabhakaran, the strife still continued. Nations are built over centuries. The feeling of nationalism is a strong sense of belongingness to a specified territory. But the building of nation-states was not essentially based on ethnicity.

The aspiration levels of ethnic groups are sometimes so high that clash of interests with the state can lead to violent uprising. According to George de Vos, ethnicity consists of subjective, symbolic, emblematic use by a group of people. Ethno Nationalism is a sub division of nationalism based on ethnicity/race. Language, religion, social norms etc are crucial components of ethno-national conflicts.

The uprising in Syria over Shia Sunni divisions among the Muslims, the rise of ISIS are all linked to ethnic identity assertiveness. Latvians, Kurds etc are all fighting for their identity, for their space in geopolitics. Ethnicity historically was linked to specific territorial areas but with globalisation ethnicity transcends borders of nation states. Migration is an issue along with refugee crisis. Situational and subjective approach studies ethno-national conflicts as sporadic cases of clash of interest over rights and duties.

There are several dimensions of ethno-national conflicts. Political deprivation, economic exploitation, hard stands of belligerent leader’s etc. economic development that goes haywire supporting the elites causes a great deal of frustration among ethnic minorities. The quintessential Kurds have faced the consequences of economic underdevelopment pursued by the leaders in Iraq.
Demographic pressures have redefined ethno-national movements. The Mujahir Quami Movement in Pakistan focuses on separating Karachi from other states in Sindh. The Baloch assertiveness is another example. Recently Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India is with the people of Balochistan and strongly condemns any violation of human rights in that area by the Pakistani establishment. This angered many and after the Uri terrorist attacks and surgical strikes, one thing is crystal. Ethnic conflicts are here to stay and for centuries there will be bloodshed unless diplomatically the leaders of the new political order decide to follow a uniform nation code to tackle ethnic problems and uprisings.

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the ISIS, Saffron terror are all examples of how ethnicity plays a pivotal role in determining nationalism today. Refugee crises, bloodshed, disruption of peace are all collateral damages of such a mad fight for ethnic identity assertiveness. Ethno-national conflicts are challenging the nation state system and this is a very serious issue the leaders of the world need to address to first. Divisions on the political map of the world will lead to more anarchic interpretation of balance of power with each ethnic group claiming to be superior to the other.

Identifying Bosnia as a nation, according to Henry Kissinger, was an irresponsible mistake. But in today’s era, it is only wise to focus on larger goals of economic growth, progress, job creation, education, human rights and not on ethnic conflicts. Only then can we have a just stable geopolitical order. Ethno-national conflicts consume time and since their legacy is built on the ethos of identity it is important to not ignore it completely as well. A middle path must be taken.

“Family Guy” is a typically juvenile prime time cartoon show that airs on Fox. It’s Christmas episode last night was true to form, and most of its adolescent humor would not have drawn a response from us. But the show crossed the line with its mockery of the Eucharist.

As the show’s Griffin family debates whether to go to church or go sledding on Sunday morning, Dad says, “after all, sledding was the second passion of the Christ.” With that, Jesus is shown sledding down a mountain, saying, “Eat this, for this is my dust.”

The “passion” comment is silly, and the humorous image of Jesus sledding doesn’t offend us. But the Eucharist is sacred: the body and blood of Christ, the source and summit of our Catholic faith. It is not fair game for ridicule.

Contact Fox Senior Vice President for Publicity Jason Clark: 
Jason.Clark@fox.com.

The Democratic Party is doing incalculable damage to itself by shapeshifting into the party of baseless conspiracy theories, groundless accusations, and sour grapes. Hillary Clinton was already the most distrusted presidential candidate in party history. Now she’s become the de facto flag-bearer for the nutso-clique of aspiring propagandists at the CIA, the New York Times and Bezo’s Military Digest. How is that going to improve the party’s prospects for the long term?

It won’t, because the vast majority of Americans do not want to align themselves with a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future but want to devote all their energy to kooky witch-hunts that further prove they are unfit for high office.

The reason Hillary Clinton lost the election is because she is a polarizing, untrustworthy warmonger. Period. Putin had nothing to do with it.

And the same rule applies to the major media that has attached itself leech-like to this pathetic fairytale. Here’s a clip from the Times headline story connecting FSB-agent Trump with the evil Kremlin:

“American intelligence agencies have told the White House they have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee. …

The attack on the congressional committee’s system appears to have come from an entity known as “Fancy Bear,” which is connected to the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, according to an official involved in the forensic investigation…

Clinton campaign officials have suggested that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could be trying to tilt the election to Mr. Trump, who has expressed admiration for the Russian leader.” (Computer Systems Used by Clinton Campaign Are Said to Be Hacked, Apparently by Russians, New York Times)

If there was a Pulitzer Prize for fearmongering innuendo or spurious accusations, the Times would win it hands-down. As it happens, readers have to delve much deeper into the article to find this shocking disclaimer:

“But the campaign officials acknowledge that they have no evidence. The Trump campaign has dismissed the accusations about Russia as a deliberate distraction…..”

“No evidence”???

They got nothing. NOTHING!

All they have is a few anonymous agents who refuse to identify themselves speculating on alleged hacking incidents that (they surmise) were the work of Vladimir P. Strangelove in his remote Soviet Cyber-war bunker. That’s not even enough material for a decent spy thriller.

But, of course, all this bunkum about “Fancy Bear” and  “Russian military intelligence” and the “high confidence” of (unnamed) US intelligence agents is enough to scare the hell out of many readers and leave them with the impression that the Kremlin is up to its old Cold War tricks again.  The Times editors are wise enough to know that it’s quite easy to tap into 40-years of anti-Soviet brainwashing and convince the gullible sheeple that Washington and Moscow are still mortal enemies. It would have been helpful if the Times had given the story a bit of context, that is, pointed out that the US has relentlessly expanded NATO eastward establishing military bases in all of the former Soviet satellite states, toppled the Moscow-friendly regime in Ukraine, and built nuclear weapons sites in east Europe just a few hundred miles from Moscow.

The Times writers might have also noted that this latest propaganda campaign against Russia could very well be the result of Moscow’s triumph over US-backed militants in Syria that are facing a decisive defeat due in large part to Russian involvement. In other words, the Times and the other US propaganda organs are functioning as they always do, whipping up public sentiment against the “evildoers” so Washington can drag the country into another imperial war of expansion. The whole “hacking” mantra fits perfectly with the Pentagon’s hybrid war strategy which manipulates information in order to shape public perceptions and gain support for another round of genocidal violence in some far-flung location. (Raqqa, perhaps?)

Do you think that bloodthirsty Hillary would be on-board with such a plan?

Of course she would. Hillary never met a war she didn’t like.

But let’s cut to the chase: Putin didn’t lose the election for Hillary. Obama did. People wanted change, and they didn’t get it, so they moved on to Door Number 2: Donald Trump. Take a look at these three short clips from a recent survey from PEW Research and you’ll get a feel for what really happened in the election:

“The Republican Party made deep inroads into America’s middle-class communities in 2016. Although many middle-class areas voted for Barack Obama in 2008, they overwhelmingly favored Donald Trump in 2016, a shift that was a key to his victory…..In 2016, Trump successfully defended all 27 middle-class areas won by Republicans in 2008. In a dramatic shift, however, Hillary Clinton lost in 18 of the 30 middle-class areas won by Democrats in 2008…

Overall, Democrats experienced widespread erosion in support from 2008 to 2016. Their share of the vote fell in 196 of the 221 metropolitan areas examined. The loss in support was sufficiently large to move 37 areas from the Democratic column to the Republican column…

Not coincidentally, Democrats also were more likely to have lost ground in manufacturing-dependent areas. Of the 56 communities with a relatively large share of manufacturing jobs, Trump picked up victories in 15 metro areas that had supported Obama in 2008 and held onto another 29, leaving only 12 communities in the Democrats’ column.” (GOP gained ground in middle-class communities in 2016, Pew Research)

Get it? The Dems lost ground everywhere because Obama didn’t deliver the goods. That’s reason number one. Second, Hillary didn’t address the issues that ordinary working people really care about. And what they care about is the economy. Money, security, jobs. Is that hard to understand?

People are afraid because things are getting worse not better. Their standards of living are slipping, they’re worried about their retirement, their jobs, their health care, and the pile of debt their kids have accumulated to go to college. They’ve lost confidence in the media, the congress, the courts and the president who promised change but never lifted a finger for working people his entire time in office.

That’s why Hillary lost, just look at the research.

The Democrats have no vision for the future, and without vision, the party will disintegrate which is precisely what’s happening. The Democratic Party is disintegrating before our very eyes. This latest “Russian hacking” diversion is just speeding along the process.

The Internal Security Department (ISD) operation interdicting the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) network began 15 years ago. What have we learnt in the years that have followed? What is the future trajectory of terror?

By Shashi Jayakumar*

On December 9, 2001, the ISD arrested six Singaporean Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) members, with a further 15 others detained within a month, thwarting plans to attack Yishun MRT and several foreign embassies. Not many knew that it began with a tip-off from within the local Muslim community. It is worth reflecting, 15 years on, how far we have come as a state and society in the journey against terrorism, and what the future might hold.

From the start, the government realised that arrests can only be one part of the story. This has seen the threat narrative turn over the years from prevention to resilience. There has been emphasis, too, on the need to build trust between communities. The Inter Racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs, set up in 2002) helped entrench these efforts, as did the Community Engagement Programme (2006), with the latter now receiving an important refresh through the SGSecure movement. For every visible success story, there are those that exist, equally successfully, just below the radar.These have included efforts to engage the Malay/Muslim community through behind the scenes dialogue, which has been crucial in ensuring that the JI arrests did not fray communal relations. Also critical have been the efforts by the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) working with detainees, in turn complemented by the work done by the Inter-Agency Aftercare Group, which assists the families of detainees. Over time, all these efforts when put together are coming together to assume the form of a national movement.

Social Media and Identity Politics

The JI was responsible in the last decade for a litany of terror acts (Bali 2002, 2005), Jakarta (2005, 2009). JI and its splinter groups remain a threat notwithstanding the fact that its leadership ranks have been decimated through arrests and its most skillful operatives killed. In 2001, however, we could not have known what the sheer scale of the problem would turn out to be, and the sheer multiplicity of threats that would develop quite apart from the JI.

Security practitioners and academics failed, until later on, to appreciate the full radicalising force of social media. It is no accident that homegrown terrorism began to enter security lexicon at the same time as social media really began to take off – around the middle of the last decade. Social media has not in the end turned out to be the greater denominator for some communion of humanity. Instead, it has cocooned us within echo chambers of reinforcing, and in many cases intolerant, identity.

As Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan commented in April this year at the Asia-Pacific Conference for Senior National Security Officers: “We now live in a world where no matter how crazy you are, you can find someone crazier than you to affirm your views on the Internet. So it should not surprise us that in fact it has led to a sharpening of radicalism, a sharpening of exclusive identities, and a reaffirmation of the temptation to resort to violence, both physical violence or even political violence, as people search, emphasise and reaffirm identities, imagined or real.”

The JI though extant is diminished. So too is the Islamic State (ISIS), fighting for the territory of its caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Some experts posit that ISIS’ atrocities and wanton violence have sown the seeds of its own eventual rejection. This is a simplistic view. Intolerance, with new media as its rocket fuel, is in fact the real legacy and afterlife of JI and ISIS.

Terrorism as hate crime shows signs of becoming commonplace. An example is the March 2016 murder of an Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow, Asad Shah, known for wishing his customers Happy Easter. His murderer, Tanveer Ahmad, travelled 200 miles from Bradford specifically to confront and kill him. There have been many similar random murders carried out not by IS members, but individuals whose mental make-up had been shaped and reinforced by social media. Intolerance is the new radicalisation, abetting senseless acts of violence within the routine fabric of our lives. This is what we have to be prepared for.

This should not solely be seen as a problem with Islamist extremism. There are many galvanising creeds apart from Islamist terror – white nationalists for example. What will come next? Anarchists? Individuals drawn to the conflict in Rakhine state, attempting to help their co-religionists – potentially even on both sides – Muslim and Buddhist – of the conflict?

Way Forward

Fifteen years after 9/11, we still do not fully understand what radicalises someone – this is a failure not simply on the part of security services, but also the increasing numbers of academics and psychologists who have turned their minds to the issue. Not all radicalised individuals were angry young men from depressed ghettoes. But many radicalised individuals were integrated in their societies, with good jobs and prospects. Understanding their trajectory is not so simple.

What we do know, however, and what senior officials from the security establishment have repeatedly told CENS, is that “you can’t arrest your way out of the situation”.

We should not shy away from borrowing the best of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) practices from other countries. Some nations have decided that it is vital to go very far upstream in the CVE stakes. They are trialing pilots in critical thinking skills in schools – when confronted by IS propaganda and recruitment matter, youths are been schooled in the ability to rationally interrogate the source material. In other countries, there have been attempts in diversion (through seed money for sporting or cultural activities for example), in terms of deflecting the trajectory of people who might become at risk down the line.

This kind of resilience is important. For their part, policymakers worldwide will need to accept that these embryonic methods do not lend themselves to a straightforward cost benefit analysis or control groups. But the stakes are too high not to try.

*Shashi Jayakumar is Head, Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. A version of this appeared in The Straits Times, 9 December 2016.

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On December 5, 2016, the International Crimes Tribunal-1 (ICT-1) handed down the death penalty to Edris Ali Sardar aka Gazi Edris (67), a leader of the Islami Chhatra Sangha, the then student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), for crimes committed during the Liberation War in 1971. Sulaiman Mollah aka Soleman Moulvi (84) was also charged along with Sardar, but the Tribunal did not hold him responsible for the crimes as he had died of old age complications on October 26, 2016, during the closing arguments of the case. Edris has been on the run. Four charges including death in two charges, imprisonment for life in one and seven-year jail term in another charge were proved beyond doubt against Edris. The first charge that earned Edris death was for killing 200 Hindu people by firing shots indiscriminately on May 22, 1971, in Shariatpur District. The second charge that earned him death was for killing 20 Hindu people on May 23, 1971, in Madaripur District. The third charge that earned him life in prison was for torturing and killing Lalit Mohan Kundu and Shuresh Goon by stabbing with a bayonet in mid June 1971, in Shariatpur District. Edris was also awarded seven years of rigorous imprisonment on a fourth charge, for intimidating around 1,500 people into leaving Bangladesh between March 25 and December 10, 1971.

On August 10, 2016, ICT-1 had sentenced former JeI Member of Parliament (MP) Mohamad Shakhawat Hossain (62) to death, and seven of his accomplices to life imprisonment for war crimes. His accomplices included Mohamad Billal Hossain Biswas, Mohamad Ibrahim Hossain, Sheikh Mohammad Mujibur Rahman, Mohamad Aziz Sardar, Abdul Aziz Sardar, Kazi Ohidul Islam and Mohamad Abdul Khaleque Morol. Shakhawat Hossain, Ibrahim, Abdul Aziz Sardar and Mohamad Aziz Sardar were found guilty for their roles in capturing and raping a woman who was connected with freedom fighters and were sentenced to 20-year rigorous imprisonment; Shakhawat Hossain was sentenced to death for killing local Awami League (AL) leader Chadtullo Gazi after keeping him confined at the Razakar camp for four days and his seven associates were handed down imprisonment till natural death for the same charge; Shakhawat Hossain, Mohammad Mujibur Rahman and Mohamad Abdul Khaleque Morol were sentenced to 10-year rigorous imprisonment for torturing freedom fighter Nuruddin Morol of Chingra, while Ibrahim was found not guilty and acquitted; Shakhawat Hossain was awarded the death penalty for torturing and killing Malek Sardar, who was linked to the freedom fighters, while his associates Mohamad Ibrahim Hossain, Mohamad Aziz Sardar, Abdul Aziz Sardar, and Mohamad Abdul Khaleque Morol, were sentenced to life imprisonment; and for torturing freedom fighter Miron Sheikh, Shakhawat Hossain, Mohamad Ibrahim Hossain, Mohamad Aziz Sardar, Abdul Aziz Sardar and Mohamad Abdul Khaleque Morol were sentenced to 15-year rigorous imprisonment.

On July 18, 2016, ICT-1 sentenced Ashraf Hossain, Professor Sharif Ahammed and Abdul Bari to death; and five others, including SM Yusuf Ali, Shamsul Haque, Abdul Mannan, Harun and Abul Hashem, to life imprisonment, after finding three of the five charges pressed against them proved. Ashraf, Mannan and Bari were sentenced to death for murdering 18 pro-liberation villagers at the cremation ghat in Jamalpur District on the night of July 22, 1971; Ashraf, Sharif, Mannan, Bari, Hashem, Shamsul and Yusuf were jailed until death for abducting Awami League (AL) leader and Liberation War organizer Nurul Amin Mallick from his home at Doyamoyee Lane in Jamalpur town on July 10, 1971; and Ashraf, Sharif, Mannan and Bari were also sentenced to life terms for confining, torturing and murdering innocent pro-liberation people at the torture cell run by the Al-Badr force at the Ashek Mahmud College’s hostel for degree students between April 22, 1971 and December 11, 1971. The Tribunal acquitted Shamsul and Yusuf of the charge of abduction, torture, murder, looting, setting houses on fire and other inhumane acts around the then Jamalpur sub-division from April 22, 1971 to December 11, 1971, on the grounds that sufficient evidence was not produced to prove the charge. It also acquitted Ashraf, Sharif, Mannan, Bari, Hashem, Shamsul and Yusuf of the charge of confining thousands of people, and torturing and murdering them at Al-Badr’s torture cell at PTI Hostel in Jamalpur between April 22, 1971 and December 11, 1971, as adequate evidence was not produced.

On June 1, 2016, ICT-1 handed down the death penalty to Mohibur Rahman aka Bara Miah (65); and a jail terms until death to his sibling Mozibur Rahman alias Ranga Miah (60) and cousin Abdur Razzak (63), finding them guilty on four charges. They were involved with the Nezam-e-Islami (NeI) Party and had joined the Razakar force that collaborated with the Pakistan Army in the genocide of 1971. The Tribunal awarded the death penalty to Mohibur for killing freedom fighters Akal Ali and Rajab Ali and hiding their bodies on November 11, 1971, while it awarded jail until death to Mozibur and Razzak on the same charge; 10-year jail terms were pronounced against the three for the attack, arson and looting of the Khagaura house of General M.A. Rob, an organizer of the Liberation War; the Tribunal also awarded 20-year imprisonment terms to each for helping Pakistani soldiers rape the wife of Manjab Ali, younger sister of Allat Mia, the same day at Khagaura. ICT further awarded seven years of jail to the trio on the charge of abduction and torture of Ansar Ali, who was permanently maimed as a result.

Thus far, the War Crimes (WC) Trials, which began on March 25, 2010, have indicted 74 leaders, including 44 from JeI; 12 from the Muslim League (ML); five from Nezam-e-Islami (NeI); four from Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP); two each from the Jatiya Party (JP) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); four former Razakar members; and one former Al-Badr member. Verdicts have been delivered against 51 accused, including 29 death penalties and 22 life sentences. So far, six of the 29 people who were awarded the death sentence have been hanged. On September 3, 2016, JeI central executive member Mir Quasem Ali (63) was hanged at Kashimpur Central Jail in Gazipur District; on May 11, 2016, JeI Ameer (Chief) Motiur Rahman Nizami (75) was executed at Dhaka Central Jail; on November 22, 2015, JeI Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed (67) and BNP Standing Committee member Salauddin Quader Chowdhury (66) were hanged simultaneously at Dhaka Central Jail; on April 11, 2015, JeI Senior Assistant Secretary General Mohammed Kamaruzzaman (63) was hanged at Dhaka Central Jail; and on December 12, 2013, JeI Assistant Secretary General Abdul Quader Mollah (65), who earned the nickname ‘Mirpurer Koshai (Butcher of Mirpur)’ was hanged at Dhaka Central Jail. 12 others are absconding and another 11 cases are currently pending with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, out of 22 persons who were awarded life sentences, three persons have already died serving their sentence – former JeI Ameer Ghulam Azam (91), who died on October 23, 2014; former BNP minister Abdul Alim (83), who died on August 30, 2014; and former JeI National Assembly member S.M. Yousuf Ali (83), who died on November 17, 2016. Another seven are lodged in various jails of the country.

On August 31, 2016, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, reaffirming her determination to continue the trial of war criminals, stated, “We have completed the trial of Bangabandhu (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) killing case and executed the verdict. We are also holding the trial of war criminals which Bangabandhu started and implementing the judgments and we would continue it.” On August 14, 2016, five condemned killers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur – Rahman Syed Farooq Rahman, Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Bazlul Huda, A.K.M. Mohiuddin Ahmed and Mohiuddin Ahmed – were hanged at Dhaka Central Jail.

Nevertheless, on September 8, 2016, Law Minister Anisul Huq cautioned “The children of war criminals are not innocent. They are hatching conspiracies and will continue it. We have to remember that and stay alert against them. We have to continue our war against their conspiracies.” Further, on November 9, 2016, blaming anti-liberation forces and aides of BNP Chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia for instigating attacks on Hindus, Health Minister Mohammed Nasim observed, “The killers and looters who don’t believe in Bangladesh’s liberation carried out the attack on the Hindus of Nasirnagar. The attack was aimed at demeaning the Sheikh Hasina-led Government and making Bangladesh look like it is not safe for the Hindus. The attackers will be tried at the speedy trial tribunal.” On October 30, 2016, more than 100 people were injured when an estimated 3,000 local Muslim zealots, armed with sticks and sharp weapons, vandalized and looted 17 temples and over a hundred Hindu houses and business establishments in the Nasirnagar and Haripur unions of Nasirnagar upazila (sub-District) of Brahmanbaria District. On November 4 and 5, 2016, another six houses of Hindu families were set on fire in the same area. Attacks on Hindus are not unusual in Bangladesh, but it is rare to see multiple large crowds targeting temples in an organized way as they did on October 30, 2016.

Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL)-led Government, which came to power on January 6, 2009, has shown enormous courage in going ahead with the War Crime Trials, and the completion of this process will eventually prove to be an important chapter in the history of Bangladesh, bringing some measure of justice to millions who had suffered at the hands of the Pakistan Army and its collaborators in Bangladesh. The Trials are the unfinished agenda of the Liberation War, and need to be sustained, despite efforts of anti-liberation forces and their sympathizers in the Diaspora and international community, to disrupt the process.

*S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On November 23, 2016, six Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadres were killed in an encounter with Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA) personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Jharkhand Police, at a remote location inside the Karmadih-Naurnagu Forests under the Chhipadohar Police Station of Latehar District. CRPF, Director General (DG), K. Durga Prasad disclosed, “Two out of the six slain rebels have been identified as ‘sub-zonal commander’ Deepak Kharwar alias Shailesh Kharwar, who carried a cash reward of Rs, Five Lakh [INR 500,000] on his head, and ‘area commander’ Nagendra Yadav,” and added, further, that the duo was mainly active in Latehar and Lohardaga and used to operate under the directives of Maoist ‘zonal commander’ Nakul Yadav. The identities of the remaining four Maoists are yet to be ascertained. Giving details on items recovered, Superintendent of Police (SP) Anup Birtharey stated that the Forces recovered one INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) rifle, two Self-Loading Rifles (SLRs), three .303 rifles, 600 bullets of various calibres and one dozen explosive devices. One carbine was also recovered from the riverbed. He further disclosed that four out of the seven recovered weapons had been looted from the Police on earlier occasions.

On December 11, 2016, acting on a tip-off by local residents, Police recovered a huge cache of explosives, including 120 Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and two cylinder bombs (weighing five kilograms each), from a Maoist hideout in Barwaiya forests of Manika in Latehar District. Commenting on the recovery, SP, Anoop Birtharay said the explosives belonged to the Maoist squad of ‘sub-zonal commander’ Shravan Yadav who carried a reward of INR 500,000 on his head.

Further, on October 22, 2016, Police and CRPF personnel raided a Maoist hideout in the Serendag area of Latehar District and a recovered huge cache of arms and ammunition, including 16 IEDs together weighing around 50 kilograms, one .303 rifle, two country made guns, 327 rounds of ammunition, along with a ten meter red CPI-Maoist banner, which were kept in steel containers.

Prior to the November 23, 2016, incident, however, the last killing in the District was recorded, on July 25, 2016, when CPI-Maoist cadres had killed three civilians, including two sons of a surrendered Maoist, in the Barkol Forest range of Latehar District. A pamphlet found from the spot alleged that the victims were ‘Police informers’. According to media reports, after the surrender of Rampreet Yadav (former Maoist), the Maoists had been suspecting his sons Shravan Yadav (32) and Hiralal Yadav (20), along with Shivlal Yadav (22), were working as ‘Police informers’. On July 24, 2016, when the Maoists came to know about Shravan and Hiralal’s presence in the Barkol area, a team of Maoists went to their homes and took them away to the Barkol Forest area and gunned them down. The Maoists also went to Shivlal Yadav’s house and strangled him with a rope.

According to partial data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), Latehar recorded at least 41 Left Wing Extremism (LWE)-related incidents in 2016 (all data till December 11, 20016), including four of killing, 19 of recovery, 10 of arrest, three of arson, two of blowing up of Panchayat (village level local-self government institution) buildings; one each of abduction, vandalism and holding of Kangaroo Court (jan adalat/ people’s court). In the corresponding period of 2015, the District had recorded at least 13 LWE-related incidents – two of killing, three each of arrest and recovery, two of arson, one each of blowing up of a Railway track, vandalism and bandh (general shut down) call.

Further, Maoists blew up Panchayat buildings on two occasions (on February 19 and February 20), set ablaze a tower of a private telecom company on two occasions (on February 19 and February 20), and set ablaze at least 10 heavy vehicles engaged in a road construction project on June 10. They vandalised a solar panel and battery powering a Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) mobile tower on June 26; held a kangaroo court at a location which was just 15 kilometers away from Latehar District Headquarters on July 5, 2016. LWEs ordinarily conduct such courts in areas where they have a strong presence.

Other parameters are also indicative of significant Maoist presence in the Latehar. According to the SATP database, there were at least 19 incidents of arms and ammunition recovery by the SFs during which huge caches of arms and ammunitions were recovered. Also, out of 215 LWE cadres arrested from the State in 2016, at least 25 were arrested from Latehar alone. In a significant incident of arrest, Sohan Yadav, ‘bodyguard’ of Maoist ‘Central Committee (CC) member’ Dev Kumar Singh aka Arvindji, was arrested on March 15, 2016. Out of the 25 LWE surrenders reported in Jharkhand, Latehar accounted for two. Most recently, on December 7, 2016, a Maoist ‘sub-zonal commander’, identified as Sanjay Korwa, carrying a bounty of INR 500,000, surrendered in the District. Earlier, on April 12, 2016, a Maoist leader, Dinesh Yadav (40), with several aliases – Chasma, Satyendra Yadav, Chota Vikas and Umesh, carrying a reward of INR 2.5 million, surrendered in the District. Yadav was a member of the CPI-Maoist Special Area Committee for Bihar-Jharkhand-North Chhattisgarh. He had been involved in LWE activities since 1998.

In the four killing incidents recorded in Latehar in 2016, at least 11 persons, including three civilians, one Security Force (SF) trooper and seven Maoists died. During the corresponding period of 2015, the District recorded just three fatalities (one civilian and two Maoists) in two incidents, and there were no further fatalities in 2015. There were only three fatalities (all Maoists) through 2014. Jharkhand State recorded a total of 79 fatalities in 2016 (data till December 11).
Fatalities in Latehar District and Jharkhand: 2005-2016*

Year

Latehar

Jharkhand

Latehar’s share in % of Total killing
Civilians

SFs

LWEs

Total

Civilians

SFs

LWEs/
Maoists

Total

2005

4

0

8

12

49

27

20

96

12.25

2006

2

2

0

4

18

47

29

94

4.25

2007

6

0

22

28

69

6

45

120

23.33

2008

3

0

3

6

74

39

50

163

3.68

2009

9

27

6

42

74

67

76

217

19.35

2010

6

6

1

13

71

27

49

147

8.84

2011

15

11

18

44

79

30

48

157

28.02

2012

2

4

6

12

48

24

26

98

12.24

2013

5

10

18

33

48

26

57

131

25.19

2014

0

0

3

3

48

12

37

97

3.09

2015

1

0

2

3

16

5

37

58

5.17

2016

3

1

7

11

30

10

39

79

13.92

Total

56

61

94

211

624

320

513

1457

14.48
Source: SATP, *Data till December 11, 2016.

Though no consistent trend in fatalities has been established, the sway of LWE violence in the District is inescapable. Since the formation of CPI-Maoist on September 21, 2004, Latehar has recorded 211 Maoist-linked fatalities, including 56 civilians, 61 SF personnel and 94 Maoists. Thus, of a total of 1,457 fatalities recorded in the State of Jharkhand during the period, Latehar accounted for 14.48 per cent. The highest number of fatalities, 44, in the District, was recorded in year 2011, while a low of three fatalities was registered twice in 2014 and 2015.

Latehar District, falls under the Palamu Division of Jharkhand State, and was carved out of the old Palamu District on April 4, 2001, with the truncated Palamu to its North, Chatra to its East, Lohardaga and Gumla Districts in the South, Garhwa to its North West, and Surguja, in Chhattisgarh, to its South West. Latehar is a predominantly forest District, spread across an area of 3651.59 square kilometers, of which 61.48 per cent (2,245 square kilometres) is under dense forest and its hilly terrain makes it a perfect location for a Maoist haven. Terror also dominates Latehar due to the District’s proximity with other Maoist-affected areas of Jharkhand, such as Chatra, Garhwa, Gumla, Lohardaga and Palamu, as well as its proximity to Chhattisgarh, the State currently the worst affected by LWE.

The District is also afflicted by low human development indicators, as well as widespread absence and worsening access to healthcare, education, drinking water, sanitation and food, creating an alarming humanitarian situation. These conditions are well exploited by the Maoists. Unsurprisingly, according to the “District Development and Diversity Index Report for India and Major States,” a joint survey conducted by the US-India Policy Institute (USIPI) and the Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy (CRDDP), New Delhi, found that, among 599 Districts across India under purview of the Survey, Latehar was ranked 457th, i.e., among the most backward. The report released on January 29, 2015, took composite development — measured in terms of economic development and the indices of health, education and material well-being – into consideration.

On November 14, 2016, State Director General of Police (DGP), D.K. Pandey stated that the Maoist menace was now confined to a few zones or “axes” in 11 Districts of the State: “At present, the rebels are confined in the bordering areas of the Latehar-Lohardaga-Gumla axis. Security forces have successfully managed to either persuade rebels to surrender or nabbed a number of them during counter-Maoist operations.” He claimed, further, that the situation had improved as, earlier, the rebels’ writ ran across all 24 Districts of the State.

More recently, according to a December 1, 2016, media report, the Jharkhand Government intends to set up a security camp atop the Burha Pahar (Hill) in Latehar, which has emerged as a CPI-Maoist bastion, with its top leaders, such as Dev Kumar Singh aka Arvindji and Sudhakaran aka Sudhakar Reddy, hiding there. Arvindji, Maoist CC member, who carries a reward of INR 10 million, and Sudhakar, Maoist CC member and party’s ‘military strategist’, came to Jharkhand from Andhra Pradesh in early 2016 to help their organisation to regain control over bases that had been smashed by SFs, and to revive the corridor between Jharkhand, Bihar and Chhattisgarh. Announcing the plan, Jharkhand Chief Secretary Rajabala Verma stated, on December 1, 2016, “Burha Pahar that has become a synonym for Naxalism will soon be under Police control. Security Forces will set up a camp there.”

Latehar is among 13 focus areas identified by the State Police where several security measures and developmental initiatives have been taken. DGP Pandey disclosed, on June 12, 2016, “We have identified 13 focus areas. These areas are being secured, cleared and developmental initiatives like bridges, fair price shops, electricity are being taken up besides efforts to generate employment.” The 13 focus areas are in the Districts of Garhwa, Palamau, Chatra, Latehar, Gumla, Lohardaga, Bokaro, Giridih and the Santhal Pargana region.

Meanwhile, the State Government has added to some of the effective measures adopted in the past to fight the LWE menace. On November 29, 2016, the Sate Cabinet, on special instructions from Chief Minister (CM) Raghubar Das, approved the formation of Civil Defence Volunteers in Latehar District along with another 21 Districts (Ranchi, Jamshedpur Hazaribagh, Dhanbad, Ramgarh, Giridih, Koderma, Chatra, Dumka, Deoghar, Pakur, Palamu, Garhwa, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, West Singhbhum, Khunti, Saraikela, Jamtara and Bokaro). Most recently, on November 29, 2016, Jharkhand Government approved the addition of three new Indian Reserve Battalions (IRB) to the existing 40 Battalions of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), including 22 CRPF battalions, 10 Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP) Battalions and eight India Reserve Battalions presently deployed across the State.

Latehar remains a major area of concern in Jharkhand. Given the cyclical nature of violence in the District, and continuous efforts by the surviving Maoist formations to revive activities, urgent and sustained efforts are necessary to consolidate the significant operational successes and gains of the past years.

Though no consistent trend in fatalities has been established, the sway of LWE violence in the District is inescapable. Since the formation of CPI-Maoist on September 21, 2004, Latehar has recorded 211 Maoist-linked fatalities, including 56 civilians, 61 SF personnel and 94 Maoists. Thus, of a total of 1,457 fatalities recorded in the State of Jharkhand during the period, Latehar accounted for 14.48 per cent. The highest number of fatalities, 44, in the District, was recorded in year 2011, while a low of three fatalities was registered twice in 2014 and 2015.

Latehar District, falls under the Palamu Division of Jharkhand State, and was carved out of the old Palamu District on April 4, 2001, with the truncated Palamu to its North, Chatra to its East, Lohardaga and Gumla Districts in the South, Garhwa to its North West, and Surguja, in Chhattisgarh, to its South West. Latehar is a predominantly forest District, spread across an area of 3651.59 square kilometers, of which 61.48 per cent (2,245 square kilometres) is under dense forest and its hilly terrain makes it a perfect location for a Maoist haven. Terror also dominates Latehar due to the District’s proximity with other Maoist-affected areas of Jharkhand, such as Chatra, Garhwa, Gumla, Lohardaga and Palamu, as well as its proximity to Chhattisgarh, the State currently the worst affected by LWE.

The District is also afflicted by low human development indicators, as well as widespread absence and worsening access to healthcare, education, drinking water, sanitation and food, creating an alarming humanitarian situation. These conditions are well exploited by the Maoists. Unsurprisingly, according to the “District Development and Diversity Index Report for India and Major States,” a joint survey conducted by the US-India Policy Institute (USIPI) and the Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy (CRDDP), New Delhi, found that, among 599 Districts across India under purview of the Survey, Latehar was ranked 457th, i.e., among the most backward. The report released on January 29, 2015, took composite development — measured in terms of economic development and the indices of health, education and material well-being – into consideration.

On November 14, 2016, State Director General of Police (DGP), D.K. Pandey stated that the Maoist menace was now confined to a few zones or “axes” in 11 Districts of the State: “At present, the rebels are confined in the bordering areas of the Latehar-Lohardaga-Gumla axis. Security forces have successfully managed to either persuade rebels to surrender or nabbed a number of them during counter-Maoist operations.” He claimed, further, that the situation had improved as, earlier, the rebels’ writ ran across all 24 Districts of the State.

More recently, according to a December 1, 2016, media report, the Jharkhand Government intends to set up a security camp atop the Burha Pahar (Hill) in Latehar, which has emerged as a CPI-Maoist bastion, with its top leaders, such as Dev Kumar Singh aka Arvindji and Sudhakaran aka Sudhakar Reddy, hiding there. Arvindji, Maoist CC member, who carries a reward of INR 10 million, and Sudhakar, Maoist CC member and party’s ‘military strategist’, came to Jharkhand from Andhra Pradesh in early 2016 to help their organisation to regain control over bases that had been smashed by SFs, and to revive the corridor between Jharkhand, Bihar and Chhattisgarh. Announcing the plan, Jharkhand Chief Secretary Rajabala Verma stated, on December 1, 2016, “Burha Pahar that has become a synonym for Naxalism will soon be under Police control. Security Forces will set up a camp there.”

Latehar is among 13 focus areas identified by the State Police where several security measures and developmental initiatives have been taken. DGP Pandey disclosed, on June 12, 2016, “We have identified 13 focus areas. These areas are being secured, cleared and developmental initiatives like bridges, fair price shops, electricity are being taken up besides efforts to generate employment.” The 13 focus areas are in the Districts of Garhwa, Palamau, Chatra, Latehar, Gumla, Lohardaga, Bokaro, Giridih and the Santhal Pargana region.

Meanwhile, the State Government has added to some of the effective measures adopted in the past to fight the LWE menace. On November 29, 2016, the Sate Cabinet, on special instructions from Chief Minister (CM) Raghubar Das, approved the formation of Civil Defence Volunteers in Latehar District along with another 21 Districts (Ranchi, Jamshedpur Hazaribagh, Dhanbad, Ramgarh, Giridih, Koderma, Chatra, Dumka, Deoghar, Pakur, Palamu, Garhwa, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, West Singhbhum, Khunti, Saraikela, Jamtara and Bokaro). Most recently, on November 29, 2016, Jharkhand Government approved the addition of three new Indian Reserve Battalions (IRB) to the existing 40 Battalions of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), including 22 CRPF battalions, 10 Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP) Battalions and eight India Reserve Battalions presently deployed across the State.

Latehar remains a major area of concern in Jharkhand. Given the cyclical nature of violence in the District, and continuous efforts by the surviving Maoist formations to revive activities, urgent and sustained efforts are necessary to consolidate the significant operational successes and gains of the past years.

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Any simpleton can make the obvious deduction that the job of government is not to take the People’s gold, cash, material possessions, private wealth, tangible goods, and real property away from them, to be deposited into the government’s coffers so that they can be freely intermingled with the personal piggy bank accounts of the country’s oligarchs and central bankers, two flip sides of the same coin, as we are also seeing here in the United States more than ever over the past few decades.

So when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi decided a few weeks ago to issue executive orders ordering that small cash denominations and gold holdings by India’s massive Middle Class and Poor would now become a criminal offense, and that they must turn it into the government, he has now effectively and openly declared war on India’s huge and burgeoning Middle Class, one of the largest of any nation in the world, wherein the People fuel their economy with buying/spending, nurturing a rich and vibrant economy thereon.

Narendra Modi simply declared that anyone possessing 500 or 1000 rupee notes had to turn them in for new bills before December 31, 2016, and afterwards the money is worthless.

The problem is that Narendra Modi is only letting people replace a maximum of 4500 rupees of notes for cash.

Anything more than that has to be deposited, thus forcing people to either pay taxes or render their private savings (some for countless generations) absolutely worthless.

Even more egregiously and as a fundamental deprivation of the inalienable human rights and civil liberties of the People, anyone retaining 250,000 rupees (approximately $3,500) will be criminally prosecuted.

Narendra Modi, by this criminal act, has only proven the ultimate conspiracy theory that he is in fact an agent of the International Oligarchy/Plutocracy Deep State, and is their “man in India” of the international central bankers, who want to be the only ones who actually enjoy tangible wealth rather than worthless fiat paper currency whose value can be instantly decimated or increased with a stroke of a pen, or the tap of a computer keyboard on some central banker’s laptop.

According to ZeroHedge, “After declaring large denomination notes illegal, India now targets gold…It’s not just gold bars or bullion. The government has raided houses, no questions asked, confiscating jewelry.”

Unfortunately the vast majority of India’s poor are either too uneducated, disorganized, disunited, or too powerless to do anything about this massive and organized criminal conspiracy against them – if this were to occur in the United States for example, there can be no doubt that the American People would not tolerate these acts by the unholy trinity of their Oligarchs, Corrupted Leaders, and Central Bankers.

Although Franklin Delano Roosevelt (“FDR”) did engage in this type of wholesale theft from the American People with his gold seizure Executive Order 6102 signed on April 5, 1933 “forbidding the ‘hoarding’ of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States,” the effect of which was to criminalize the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

But FDR was able to successfully hoodwink the American people, who at the time, were much more innocent and pliable back then, by his hiding behind “American Patriotism” during a time of war (World War 2) and also because he was trying to deceive the American People into thinking that this was the only remedy to combat the burgeoning Great Depression, which was completely and totally wrought on purpose by the newly formed Federal Reserve Bank enacted in 1913, but which the American People had not yet figured out at the time, was neither “federal” nor a “reserve,” but was in fact a completely and privately owned family business, emanating out of London under the Rothschild Banking Cartel, and FDR was their American agent in the White House.

As noted Economist Jim Rickards has remarked, “the global elites are using negative interest rates and inflation to make your money disappear…The whole idea of the war on cash is to force savers into digital bank accounts so that their money can be taken from them in the form of negative interest rates.”

So to that end, armed with all of this history and hindsight, Narendra Modi has revealed himself to be the Devil Incarnate with this act – he is robbing the poor to give to the rich, which is the ultimate definition of evil.

This is an extremely dismal and disappointing development by a man who was touted as the “savior” and economic “liberalizer” of India, but has in fact revealed himself to be nothing but a tool of the Oligarchs/Plutocrats, placed into power in order to loot his own people and destroy his own country’s middle class, to drive them further into poverty, austerity, death, and destruction (just like Germany’s Angela Merkel, USA’s Barack Obama, UK’s David Cameron, Italy’s Matteo Renzi, and others recently being pushed out of office by the People in their Awakening to their wholesale rape and pillaging by the Oligarchy, now very much international in nature).

The traitor Narendra Modi overnight made approximately 85% of India’s entire currency completely and totally worthless, causing the middle class and the poor to take to begging in the streets, gas stations, and stores to fill their car tanks, or to even buy food.

People have rightfully called Narendra Modi and his act, totally “demonic.”

Modi has defended his criminal behavior by stating that he wanted to root out corruption and get rid of hidden money within the Indian Economy, but in reality this is exactly what constitutes private wealth vested within the Middle Class and the poor, who use it on a daily basis to live, survive, buy food and goods, and literally sustain their vibrant and private growth fueled economy – which is literally the lifeblood force of the Indian Middle Class and its economy – which Modi has now effectively killed on behalf of his Plutocratic paymasters.

600 million of India’s poor and uneducated don’t even have a bank account, and 300 million people don’t even have government identification, so this is also a type of “bird tagging” operation in order to eradicate personal freedom, as well as being a mass confiscation of “mom and pop money” being hidden under their mattress for a rainy day, and away from the big bad wolves of government corruption, thieving oligarchs, and other organized criminal figures.

The hypocritical and deceptive Modi ran on a “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance” election platform, and this is how he has treated his People.

Some of the catastrophic results of Narendra Modi’s ultimate betrayal are already in:

(1) daily wage laborers haven’t been paid due to the currency shortage;

(2) people are only eating one meal a day;

(3) farmers and vendors can’t sell their produce due to no cash to buy them with;

(4) produce has been ruined due to being spoiled;

(5) small businesses can’t operate without cash and are therefore going bankrupt;

(6) massive deaths have been reported as a direct result of Narendra Modi’s treachery.

Meanwhile Narendra Modi continues to enjoy wearing his $16,000 suits – a true “man of the people.”

Twin bombs in central Istanbul may not have targeted Besiktas JK’s newly refurbished Vodafone Arena stadium, but underscore the propaganda value of attacking a soccer match for both jihadist and non-jihadist groups. They also raise questions about counter-terrorism strategy.

The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, a splinter of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), claimed responsibility for Saturday’s blasts that targeted police on duty to maintain security at a match between top Turkish clubs Besiktas and Bursapor. Thirty-eight of the people killed in the attacks were riot police.

Unlike the targeting of stadiums by jihadist groups such as the Islamic State’s attack on the Stade de France in Paris in November last year and its reportedly subsequent foiled attempts to bomb international matches in Belgium and Germany, the Falcon’s operation appeared designed to maximize police casualties and minimize civilian casualties.

American-Turkish soccer scholar and writer John Konuk Blasing reporting from Istanbul during the blasts noted that the attacks occurred two hours after the match attended by more than 40,000 people had ended. Mr. Blasing argued that the timing called into question President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s effort to capitalize on the attacks by asserting that they had been “aimed to maximise casualties” irrespective of their identity.

Mr. Blasing reasoned that “the target of the stadium was chosen in order to send a message, a twisted and violent message that says: ‘We can do worse damage if we wanted to. Right now, we are attacking the state, not citizens. But if we want to target citizens, we can do that too.’”

With other words, Kurds much like the Islamic State or Al Qaeda in the past, Boko Haram in Nigeria or Al Shabab in Somalia could one day also target soccer matches that maximize the publicity effect of their operations because the games are often broadcast locally, regionally and internationally.

Mr. Erdogan’s assertion that the Istanbul attacks sought to cause random casualties served two purposes: to lump together all forms of political violence, jihadist attacks that seek to cause maximum civilian casualties, and in the case of militant Turkish Kurdish groups, the targeting of a state that long suppressed Kurdish political and cultural rights and cynically derailed promising peace talks in June 2015 when it served the electoral needs of the president’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The breakdown in the talks occurred as Mr. Erdogan was preparing for a second round of elections in November of that year after June polls had produced a hung parliament.

To be sure, the government and the PKK share equal blame for the collapse of the six-year old peace talks that followed the killing by the PKK of three Turkish policemen in June 2015. Similarly, south-eastern Turkey continued to experience sporadic violence during the ceasefire agreed upon at the outset of the talks and the PKK had not fully lived up to its commitment to disarm and withdraw from Turkish territory.

Nonetheless, analysis with a supercomputer of two years’ worth of geospatial data that sought to establish how militant Kurdish groups perceived threats suggested that the ceasefire on Turkish soil had been largely successful prior to the killing of the policemen. International relations scholar Akin Unver, who conducted the analysis noted that the PKK had focused its military activity in 2014 and early 2015 on fighting the Islamic State in Syria in a bid to further the national aspirations of its Syrian Kurdish brothers.

Amid Turkish and Kurdish doubts about the sincerity of their interlocutors in the peace talks, PKK support for the Syrian Kurds challenged Turkish policy that often was far more focussed on stymieing the rise of Kurdish nationalism and the emergence of Syrian Kurdish entity than on defeating the Islamic state that it at times viewed as a bulwark against the Kurds. The killing of the Turkish policemen was the convenient straw that broke the camel’s back.

“There is only one thing both sides agree upon: in the months before the collapse there was not much negotiating going on. Our data show there was not much fighting either,” Mr. Unver wrote in an article in the Financial Times.

Mr. Unver warned that the renewed hostilities with the Kurds coupled with Mr. Erdogan’s crackdown on the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (HDP) whose leaders and members of parliament have been targeted and/or detained in the wake of July’s failed military coup, “serves as fodder for disenchantment and radicalisation” among the Kurds.

Mr. Unver’s analysis has a bearing on Mr. Erdogan’s effort to lump all political violence together. To be sure, distinctions do not justify the use of violence, nor does the targeting of police officers rather than civilians give it any greater moral value.

The distinction is nonetheless significant in establishing the facts on the basis of which strategies to prevent escalation and the further shedding of innocent blood can be prevented. More than 30 years of armed confrontation between the Turkish military and Kurdish militants in which upwards of 40,000 people have been killed have failed to resolve the conflict.

Mr. Unver’s analysis suggests the pursuit of a negotiated, political solution, however fraught, may have been a more promising approach at a time that political violence perpetrated by multiple groups has wracked Turkey. Not counting devastating jihadist attacks, Saturday’s bombings were the sixth Kurdish operation this year.

“It is chilling that this may only be a prelude to much worse in Turkey,” Mr. Blasing noted. Much worse does not bode well and could increasingly turn soccer pitches among others into prime targets.

The Syrian Democratic Forces on Dec. 10 announced the start of the next phase of their operation to isolate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s self-proclaimed capital of Raqqa, US Central Command officials reported Monday.

The SDF — made up in part by local Arabs and its coalition –rained-and-equipped Arab component, the Syrian Arab Coalition, and supported by coalition advisors and airstrikes — began the operation to isolate Raqqa on Nov. 5, officials said.

In their march toward Raqqa, the SDF has liberated dozens of villages and more than 700 square miles of ISIL-held terrain, Centcom officials said, adding that local Arab fighters continue to join the SDF and fight to liberate their own land.

Proven Ability

During the initial phase of isolation efforts, officials said, the coalition’s Syrian partners have proven their ability in battle, pushing ISIL back and destroying ISIL heavy weapons, vehicles, fortifications, bomb-making facilities, vehicle bombs, armored vehicles, technical vehicles, bridges, decoys and caches.

The coalition supports the SDF through training, advise-and-assist operations, airstrikes and material support to the Syrian Arab Coalition, officials said. Since the start of the operation, they added, the coalition conducted more than 300 strikes delivering more than 850 munitions in support of its partners on the ground to enable the isolation of Raqqa and defeat of ISIL in Syria.

New research led by the University of Southampton shows Neanderthals kept coming back to a coastal cave site in Jersey from at least 180,000 years ago until around 40,000 years ago.

As part of a re-examination of La Cotte de St Brelade and its surrounding landscape, archaeologists from Southampton, together with experts from three other universities and the British Museum, have taken a fresh look at artifacts and mammoth bones originally excavated from within the site’s granite cliffs in the 1970s. Their findings are published in the journal Antiquity.

The researchers matched types of stone raw material used to make tools to detailed mapping of the geology of the sea bed, and studied in detail how they were made, carried and modified. This helped reconstruct a picture of what resources were available to Neanderthals over tens of thousands of years – and where they were traveling from.

Lead author Dr Andy Shaw of the Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO) at the University of Southampton said: “La Cotte seems to have been a special place for Neanderthals. They kept making deliberate journeys to reach the site over many, many generations. We can use the stone tools they left behind to map how they were moving through landscapes, which are now beneath the English Channel. 180,000 years ago, as ice caps expanded and temperatures plummeted, they would have been exploiting a huge offshore area, inaccessible to us today.”

Previous research focused on particular levels in the site where mammoth bones are concentrated, but this new study took a longer-term perspective, looking at how Neanderthals used it and explored the surrounding landscape for over 100,000 years.

The team, including academics from the British Museum, University College London (UCL) and the University of Wales found that Neanderthals kept coming back to this particular place, despite globally significant changes in climate and landscape. During glacial phases (Ice Ages), they traveled to the site over cold, open landscapes, now submerged under the sea. They kept visiting as the climate warmed up and Jersey became a striking highpoint in a wide coastal plain connected to France.

Dr Beccy Scott of the British Museum added: “We’re really interested in how this site became ‘persistent’ in the minds of early Neanderthals. You can almost see hints of early mapping in the way they are traveling to it again and again, or certainly an understanding of their geography. But specifically what drew them to Jersey so often is harder to tease out. It might have been that the whole Island was highly visible from a long way off – like a waymarker – or people might have remembered that shelter could be found there, and passed that knowledge on.”

Paper author Dr Matt Pope, of the Institute of Archaeology at UCL, agreed: “La Cotte de St Brelade is probably the most important Neanderthal site in northern Europe and could be one of the last known places that Neanderthals survived in the region. It was certainly as important to them as it is to us, as we try and understand how they thrived and survived for 200,000 years.

“With new technology we have been able to reconstruct the environment of the La Cotte Neanderthals in a way earlier researchers couldn’t. Our project has really put the Neanderthal back into the landscape, but emphasized how significant the changes in climate and landscape have been since then.”

Project leader Professor Clive Gamble, of CAHO at the University of Southampton, commented: “Jersey is an island that endures, summed up by the granite cliffs of St Brelade’s Bay. The elements which led to Neanderthals coming back for so many thousands of years shows how this persistence is deep rooted in Jersey’s past. Our project has shown that more unites the past with the present than separates. We are not the only humans to have coped successfully with major environmental changes. Let’s hope we are not the last.”

The team’s work was undertaken as part of the ‘Crossing the Threshold’ project led by Professor Clive Gamble and Dr John McNabb at the University of Southampton, together with UCL and the British Museum. The research was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and looks at major changes in how early humans used places from 400,000 years ago.

By Chintamani Mahapatra*

Candidate Donald Trump’s positions on China during the long election campaign and President-elect Trump’s tweets and phone calls have generated the impression of a coming paradigm shift in Washington’s approach to China under the Trump administration.

Whether trade, investment or security issues, Trump has yet to say something substantially positive about China since the campaign days. He promised to raise the tariffs on imports from China to an extent that could threaten a trade war, inducing many US analysts to warn about the negative impact of a trade war with China.

When President-elect Trump had a telephon conversation with the President of Taiwan, China issued a modest reprimand, but others saw in it a paradigm shift in US policy. The reason is simple. No US President-elect or President has had a telephonic conversation with a Taiwanese President since the 1979 US agreement with China to view Taiwan as part of China in acceptance of the “one China” policy.

China retains the right to annex Taiwan by force, while accepting the US view that Taiwan’s final annexation with the mainland should be peaceful. The US, on the other hand, seeks to ensure peace by underwriting Taiwan’s defense preparedness through the supply of ‘defensive’ weapons. China usually fumes when Washington supplies sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan or a Taiwanese leader visits the US under some pretext or the other.

What explains Beijing’s modest response to Trump’s phone conversation with the Taiwanese President? First of all, the general perception in China during the US presidential election was that Trump would be a pragmatic leader and businessmen who would safeguard the deep Sino-US economic cooperation and not allow issues such as human rights to muddy the relationship. Chinese analysts also felt that the Trump administration would not uphold its traditional alliances in the Asia-Pacific, thus reducing strategic pressure on China. Secondly, when the Trump team contended that the President-elect merely responded to a congratulatory call from Taipei rather than took the initiative himself, the blame suddenly shifted to the Taiwanese President. China promptly admonished and warned Taiwan’s pro-democracy political forces.

Many others, however, quickly pointed out that the telephone conversation was premeditated and part of a political strategy to send signals, and was in no way a coincidence. China’s suspicion deepened when Trump tweeted that China did not consult the US before devaluing its currency and caused losses to US businesses. He also complained against China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea and its construction of military facilities.

The Chinese perception has to an extent changed again, and Trump is suspected of believing that US-China relations are zero-sum and that the greater loss has been to the US in recent decades. He will thus act tough on the rising superpower to make “America great again.” Trump’s rhetoric to make “America great again” is interpreted as his conviction that US’ global influence had declined while China’s had increased, and thus there is a need for course correction.

China would have carefully monitored Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s New York visit and meeting with the President-elect. Earlier, Beijing appeared more relaxed with Trump’s remarks that Japan and South Korea should fend for themselves or pay more for their protection by the US military. Washington’s differences with the allies would bring strategic benefits to Beijing. But Trump has apparently assured Tokyo, Seoul and many other allies of substantive continuity in US policy towards allies.

While the details of Trump’s Asia-Pacific policy are not known yet, both the strategic competitors and allies of the US appear to be in a state of anxiety about the Trump administration. China expects the ‘business-as-usual’ approach, since it has very high stakes in its trade and investment ties with the US and its economy is passing through a difficult transition. Japan, South Korea, Australia and other strategic allies do not desire any turbulence in their alliance relationship with the US.

It is likely that Trump will try to promote economic ties with China without conceding to China’s spreading foothold in strategic areas. Simultaneously, he will try to extract more defence burden-sharing from US’ strategic allies. This way, he will try to strengthen US’ military and economic presence in the region. The ‘pivot to Asia’, ‘Asian rebalancing’, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may become things of the past. Trump’s engagement with the region will thus neither be a paradigm shift nor will it be business as usual.

*Chintamani Mahapatra
Rector and Professor, JNU, & Columnist, IPCS

In responding to assertions attributed to CIA analysts who say that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election in order to help Donald Trump win, the president-elect is following the standard business practice employed by oil companies and the tobacco industry in order to deflect criticism: first come the categorical denials whose purpose is to trample on the questions and belittle the questioners; then comes the cloud of uncertainty whose purpose is to promote a sense of equality in the face of the unknown.

Whereas other practitioners of this strategy often take years to move from stage one to stage two, Trump makes the leap within a few sentences. Having first dismissed the CIA’s claim as ridiculous, Trump then pleaded ignorance.

In order to foster an all-embracing sense of uncertainty, in his interview aired on Fox News yesterday, Trump said: “there’s great confusion. Nobody really knows…. They’re not sure. They’re fighting among themselves. They’re not sure…. if you read the stories, the various stories, they’re disputing. And certain groups don’t necessarily agree. Personally, it could be Russia. It — I don’t really think it is. But who knows? I don’t know either. They don’t know and I don’t know.”

If Trump has actually read the news reports he’d know that there is a consensus in the intelligence community and the FBI that Russia interfered in the election.

What is in dispute is not the fact of the interference but its purpose.

News reporting is currently reducing this dispute to a binary question about whether Russia was trying to install Trump as president, but for those willing to speculate about Russian objectives the analysis needs to be a bit more subtle.

What should not be in dispute is the claim that Russia had a preference for Trump. As the New York Times reports:

American officials cite broad evidence that Mr. Putin and the Russian government favored Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton.

After demonstrators marched through Moscow in 2011 chanting “Putin is a thief” and “Russia without Putin,” Mr. Putin publicly accused Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, of instigating the protests. “She set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal,” he said.

More generally, the Russian government has blamed Mrs. Clinton, along with the C.I.A. and other American officials, for encouraging anti-Russian revolts during the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. What Americans saw as legitimate democracy promotion, Mr. Putin saw as an unwarranted intrusion into Russia’s geographic sphere of interest, as the United States once saw Soviet meddling in Cuba.

By contrast, Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin have had a very public mutual admiration society. In December 2015, the Russian president called Mr. Trump “very colorful” — using a Russian word that Mr. Trump and some news outlets mistranslated as “brilliant” — as well as “talented” and “absolutely the leader in the presidential race.” Mr. Trump called Mr. Putin “a strong leader” and further pleased him by questioning whether the United States should defend NATO members that did not spend enough on their militaries.

Russian television, which is tightly controlled by the government, has generally portrayed Mr. Trump as a strong, friendly potential partner while often airing scathing assessments of Mrs. Clinton.

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media.

There is little reason to doubt that Russia has always had a strong preference for Trump and yet when the DNC hacking was instigated, everyone — including the Russians — must have seen a Trump victory as a long-shot.

So, discussion about Russian intentions needs to take account of the strong likelihood that its goals evolved. As the Washington Post reported in July, “It may be that the Kremlin wishes to disrupt and discredit the U.S. political process without seeking any particular result.”

And yet through a combination of the effect of multiple factors — leaked emails, relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton’s integrity, the lack of a compelling Democratic Party message, and then a decisive last minute assist from the FBI — Donald Trump won the election.

This is the outcome Russia wanted and helped bring about.

And if there is any remaining doubt that it will be duly rewarded for its efforts, the first serving is about to get dished out this week in the form of Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobil, whose appointment as Secretary of State is already being praised by the Kremlin even before it has been announced.

Coptic Pope Tawadros II Monday called for national unity in Egypt, a day after at least 23 people were killed in a bombing at the main cathedral of the Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the worst attacks on the country’s Christian minority.

“We know that whoever has done this does not belong to Egypt, its history or its civilization,” the pontiff said in a quavering voice.

“The Egyptian people do not know violence or terrorism. But there are other martyrs other than those to whom we bid farewell today,” Tawadros II added at funeral prayers for victims of the weekend victims.

He called the bombing an attack “against the nation.”

As the pope spoke at the televised somber ceremony, coffins of the 23 slain worshippers were arrayed inside the church in the eastern Cairo area of Nasr City, where the prayers were held.

Attendance was restricted to relatives of the victims as a security measure.

Hundreds of mourners stood outside the church holding large crosses.
blank

Following the prayers, the coffins were transported to a nearby memorial cenotaph for an official funeral expected to be attended by President Abdul Fattah al-Sissi.

Egypt has witnessed a wave of attacks since 2013, when the army deposed Islamist president Mohammad Morsi following mass protests against Morsi’s rule.

Sunday’s bombing took place during a mass service at the Botrosiya church, which adjoins the papal seat at St Mark’s cathedral.

An earlier official report said that 25 people were killed in the attack. Later, the Health Ministry lowered the toll to 23.

Local media reported survivors as saying that the bomb went off in a bag left in the women’s pews of the church as mass was drawing to a close. There has been no claim of responsibility.

The attack is the worst to hit a Christian place of worship in majority Muslim Egypt since a News Year’s Eve 2010 bomb attack on a church in the northern city of Alexandria killed 23 worshippers.

Egypt’s Christian minority has long complained of discrimination and sectarian violence, especially in rural southern Egypt.

Al-Sissi has repeatedly reached out to the community, which strongly supported his move, as army chief, to depose Morsi

Original source

Though the atrocious attack that targeted Sunday mass at an Egyptian St. Mark Church complex is yet to be claimed, it did not take Daesh supporters long to rejoice and show their true — and disgusting — nature on social media.

It must be clearly reiterated that these sick-minded individuals are alone in their celebration. There is no race, religion or rationale that could ever justify, let alone cheer, taking the lives of 25 innocent people — of which the majority were women and children — in their sacred place of worship.

It is definitely positive that condemnations were almost immediately issued by the likes of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Jordan and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), among many others. However, mere statements are no longer enough.

We, as people, must actively do more to protect our Arab Christian brothers and sisters. They, as fellow citizens, have an equal right to live peacefully. Furthermore, we should never forget the noble and patriotic positions they, as a community, took in support of Arab — and even Muslim — causes.

A great example of this occurred only a few weeks ago, when a Palestinian church defied a proposed Israeli ban on the Muslim call to prayer and decided to sound the Adhan from within its own walls.

Yet Christians across the Arab world remain targeted by deliberate, cowardly acts, either by terrorist attacks — such as what happened in Cairo yesterday — or by “wannabe” regimes such as Daesh.

This is why on a military level, Saudi Arabia — which is leading the Islamic Coalition against Daesh — should intensify efforts to combat this wicked group. What could facilitate this is that a new US administration, which seems intent on taking more serious collective action against Daesh, is coming to power. Furthermore, we should do more not only to protect but to celebrate our Christian and/or Jewish minorities in Arab states that have them.

If any good came out of the evil that was done yesterday in Cairo, it was seeing crowds of Egyptian Muslim young men and women gather in protest against attacking the church complex. This is the true spirit of Egypt, and so long as it persists, we as Arabs will always have something to be hopeful about.

The Green Party request to recount paper ballots from the presidential election in Pennsylvania and inspect electronic systems for signs of hacking has been denied by a federal judge.

US District Judge Paul Diamond dismissed Jill Stein’s lawsuit on Monday morning. It was part of a larger effort to challenge the voting results in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Republican candidate Donald Trump won a narrow victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in all three to carry the Electoral College vote.

In his 31-page decision, Judge Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the lawsuit among them that suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election “borders on the irrational.”

Diamond also wrote that granting the recount would “ensure that no Pennsylvania vote counts” given Tuesday’s federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College.

The recount effort had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and Pennsylvania’s attorney general.

In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast.

Judge Diamond also said the lawsuit suffered from lack of standing, and potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction.

Lawyers for the Green Party hit numerous roadblocks in county and state courts over the group’s recount effort. They argued in their lawsuit that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that the state’s use of paperless machines made it a prime target. They also argued that the state erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.

A federal judge halted Michigan’s recount last week after three days.

Wisconsin’s presidential election recount, which began December 1, is expected to conclude on Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000.

Trump’s supporters also tried to halt the Wisconsin recount.

On December 8, 24 people were arrested and several house searches were carried out in Greece as part of a joint investigation by Greece and the UK, Europol said Monday.

According to Europol, the individuals were arrested on suspicion of being part of an organized crime group believed to be facilitating the smuggling of Iranian nationals from Greece to the UK, often via France and Spain, by using counterfeit documents or impersonating their legitimate owners.

A Europol specialist in illegal immigrant facilitation, equipped with a mobile office, was deployed on-the-spot and assisted national authorities throughout the operation.

Investigators believe the group was charging up to 10,000 euros per person to supply migrants with fraudulently obtained or altered identity documents, and to arrange their onward journeys to the UK.

Four forgery facilities, where the group was alleged to have produced the counterfeit documents, were dismantled during the operation. Forgery equipment, 50,000 euros in cash and hundreds of documents were also seized.

In a linked operation, nine suspects were arrested as UK officers were deployed to addresses in Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester and Northampton on 5 December. They were supported on-the-spot by a Europol analyst with a mobile office, who performed real-time analysis and cross-checks against Europol’s databases. Three French police officers also provided support.

The suspected criminal network was based in the UK, more specifically in Greater Manchester, and conducted its activities in other Member States. Due to the transnational activities of the network, parallel investigations emerged in the Czech Republic, France, Greece and Spain, under the coordination of Europol and Eurojust. A joint investigation team was also established between the UK and France, Europol said.

By Ana Maria Touma

Romania’s Social Democratic Party, PSD, won legislative elections on Sunday and is set to designate the next Prime Minister, although it is still unclear if it managed to win a majority in parliament.

According to partial results after 98 percent of the votes were counted, the PSD won 45.9 percent, but this result might change after a redistribution of votes.

Romania has a list-based proportional system with a 5-percent threshold for parties to be able to enter parliament. The votes of factions that scored less than 5 per cent are redistributed to the winning parliamentary forces after the count is over.

The second largest party, the centre-right National Liberal Party, PNL, came far behind with only 20 per cent of the votes, a failure that prompted the party’s leader, Alina Gorghiu, to resign on Monday following accusations that she did not come up with a winning strategy.

The surprise of the poll was six-month-old Save Romania Union, USR, led by civic activist Nicusor Dan, which scored 9 per cent, which makes it the third largest group in the new parliament.

According to the Central Electoral Bureau, the USR scored more than the PNL among voters in the capital, Bucharest.

The Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania, UDMR, came fourth with 6.2 per cent of the votes, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats won 5.5 per cent and former president Traian Basescu’s Popular Movement Party took 5.2 per cent.

The new parliament is be sworn in on December 19. The parliamentary majority will then hold consultations with President Klaus Iohannis and he will announce the new Prime Minister on December 22 at the latest. The new government will be sworn in after December 30.

The debate will focus on the name of the new PM-designate, after head of the PSD, Liviu Dragnea, was taken into account once again despite known reservations from President Ionnahis who has vowed not to agree to any candidate who has been sentenced or even investigated for graft.

Dragnea has a two-year suspended jail sentence for trying to rig a referendum on suspending former President Traian Basescu in 2012. The law also forbids any convicted politician from holding government office.

However, ALDE has announced that if it comes to forming a political alliance with the PSD, it would support a Prime Minister suggested by the Social Democrats, and ALDE’s leader, Calin Popescu Tariceanum, has said he is willing to stand by Dragnea.

A refusal by Iohannis to nominate Dragnea as Prime Minister might therefore create a political stand-off between the President and the parliament.

Theoretically the President has the right to refuse the majority’s nomination and come up with his own name. If parliament, where PSD and ALDE now form the majority, reject the president’s proposal, the process will restart with new consultations.