Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73722 articles
Browse latest View live

France: Arrested ETA Member José Manuel Azkarate Ramosa

$
0
0

French Judicial Police officers, in collaboration with the General Commissariat of Information of the Spanish National Police, arrested the member of the terrorist group ETA, José Manuel Azkarate Ramos, born in Tolosa (Guipúzcoa) in 1963, in the French city of Marseille, who had been at large.

At the time of his arrest, José Manuel Azkarate Ramos, who was subject to an outstanding European Arrest Warrant, was carrying fake documentation prepared by the terrorist group ETA. Preliminary investigations point to the fact that this long-standing member of the terrorist group ETA was about to depart for South America.

In 1984, José Manuel Azkarate Ramos was a member of the Biscay Commando, which committed several terrorist attacks that same year, including the murder of the retired lieutenant colonel, Alberto Aznar Félix, in Portugalete and the attack on a military convoy in Galdákano (Biscay), which took the life of Lieutenant Juan Enríquez Criado, Second Lieutenant Francisco Javier Fernández de Lajusticia and the civilian, Manuel Asensio Pereda. He also took part in the murder of an alleged drugs trafficker.

At the end of 1985, he took part in the kidnapping of Juan Pedro Guzmán Uribe, a businessman and executive of Athletic Bilbao Football Club in Lezama (Biscay). On 10 January 1986, he was arrested by National Police officers following the release of the aforesaid businessman. After being tried and sentenced for his membership of an armed gang, false imprisonment and several attacks, he was jailed until his release on 19 April 2004, conditional upon appearing at a police station on a periodic basis, which he violated by fleeing his home in June 2011, thereby breaching his parole. He was arrested by the National Police for that offence in 2012.

After being released under precautionary measures handed down by the Appeal Court of Pau, and with a valid extradition order to be taken back to Spain issued by the French Council of State, José Manuel Azkarate Ramos fled from his property in the south of France.

This latest arrest took place under a joint operation and is the result of an ongoing collaboration in the fight against terrorism between the Counter-Terrorism Sub-Directorate of the Central Directorate of the French Judicial Police and the General Commissariat of Information of the Spanish National Police.


Taiwan: More Than A Trump Card For US Dealing With Beijing – Analysis

$
0
0

Arms sales for Taiwan fit Trump’s insistence that US allies must shoulder more defense costs.

By Wenran Jiang*

President-elect Donald Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks and late night tweets have flummoxed observers. His personnel selections for the new cabinet have included both hawks and doves on China and Russia, thus sending out mixed signals on how he will handle US relations with the two world powers. His unprecedented phone conversation with Taiwan’s president has raised a storm of controversy: Is he a “child in foreign relations” as one Chinese newspaper says or a Machiavellian negotiator? Indications are that Trump is deliberately set to undo traditional US policy towards China.

After a carefully coordinated call with President Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan, Trump now claims that his administration may not be “bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

From the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, to the Paris climate deal Trump has targeted many of Obama’s signature policies, but his sharpest attacks on a foreign country have focused on China: “raping America,” “currency manipulator,” “greatest jobs theft in history,” “unfair taxes on our companies,” military buildup in the South China Sea, and not helping the US at all on North Korea.

Surprising as these comments might seem, Trump’s China policy orientation has its roots in the Obama administration. During much of his time in office, President Barack Obama pursued the “pivot to Asia,” a strategic “rebalancing” of US interests from Europe and the Middle East toward East Asia as advocated by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The US strengthened its military alliance relationship with Japan and South Korea, announced deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system in the Korean Peninsula, stepped up military cooperation with Australia and the Philippines, improved relations with Vietnam and India, and repeatedly sent its navy and air force to the South China Sea – all viewed by Washington as necessary to counter China’s growing assertiveness, but seen by Beijing as measures to contain China’s rise. On the economic front, Obama took the lead in negotiating the TPP, a 12-country trading block without China and in rivalry with the Beijing-led 15-nation Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, so that “China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do.”

Yet at the same time, Obama actively engaged China, from regular summit meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping to the annual high-level US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

Trump’s latest public comments and moves on China have demonstrated that he has been briefed and updated by his transition team consisting of his own and Obama officials, as confirmed by his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. While Trump selected Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who has maintained a relationship Xi for more than 30 years and claimed US-China relations must improve, it is far from certain that the current US-China engagement framework will continue.

What is certain is that Trump’s dealings with Beijing will begin with more confrontation, less accommodation, as China is now openly labeled as the “most important adversary” of the United States, according to Carly Fiorina, a former Republication presidential candidate now under consideration for Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Therefore, Trump’s phone call with the Taiwanese leader and his flirting with the “one-China” policy must be understood in the broader context of his policy toward Beijing. Details have emerged that some of Trump’s foreign policy advisors, including Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee and the president-elect’s pick as his chief of staff, have close ties to Taiwan; that the Trump team lobbied to insert stronger language of support for Taiwan into the Republican election platform during the summer; and that Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee and a former Senate majority leader, facilitated the call as a paid lobbyist of the Taiwanese government.

While reactions to Trump’s Taiwan move have been mostly shock and concern, few have paid attention to the fact that Taiwan is more than just a bargaining chip for the United States to gain leverage with China. The island is currently the ninth largest trading partner of the United States. Since 2010, Taiwan has been the largest buyer of US arms in the Asia Pacific, totaling more than $14 billion, plus another $6.2 billion in US licenses in arms sales and services. These sales include some of the most advanced weapons such as AH-64E Apache attack helicopters, Patriot Advance Capability-3 missiles, F-16 fighters and advanced munitions.

Jobs program? Taiwan has ranked among the top recipients of US arms sales, and the US continues to lobby for Taiwan to spend more (Data: Congressional Research Service)

Jobs program? Taiwan has ranked among the top recipients of US arms sales, and the US continues to lobby for Taiwan to spend more (Data: Congressional Research Service)


Keeping pace with continuous arms sales to Taiwan, the US government has been quietly but gradually upgrading its military and political contacts with Taiwan while officially committed to the “one China” policy. David Helvey, a senior advisor at the US Defense Department, performing the duties of the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, recently appealed to the Taiwan government to increase its defense budget, purchase more US arms and services and have more Taiwanese companies work with the US defense sectors in order to “keep pace with threat developments” coming from China.

It is thus a logical step that the US Congress, in the newly passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2017, authorized upgraded senior military exchanges with Taiwan in early December. This means that the US will send high level civilian and military officers, including assistant secretaries of defense and generals, to meet with their Taiwan counterparts on an annual basis.

Relations between the United States and Taiwan have been upgrading even under the Obama administration. Given that fact, Trump, along with many of his team members harboring hostility toward China, will continue to expand these military and commercial interests in Taiwan. It is worth recalling that Trump tweeted on US arms sales to Taiwan several years ago, accusing Obama of being too concerned about Beijing’s reactions. Now, more arms sales to Taiwan fit perfectly with Trump’s campaign rhetoric that US allies must shoulder more financial costs in exchange for continued US protection. Selling more arms will create jobs and promote US exports while reducing the US burden in East Asia.

In such a scenario, it is also likely that Trump will pursue a similar arrangement, modeled after Taiwan, with Japan and South Korea. Both were on Trump’s hit list during the presidential campaign for taking advantage of the United States in their alliance relationship.

If Trump gets his way, he will pressure Tokyo and Seoul to pay more for the US military bases in the two countries, short of renegotiating the existing defense treaties. And in addition to extracting trade-related concessions, Trump may also push for Japan and South Korea to buy more US arms, creating employment at home while letting Tokyo and Seoul contribute more in dealing with the North Korea threat, and balancing against China at the same time.

Now that Trump has decided to bring Taiwan back as a negotiating card in the US-China relations before he takes office, Beijing has taken a firm stand that the one-China principle is non-negotiable. Unknown is how Trump’s yet to be articulated Russian policy fits into his unfolding China game.

*Wenran Jiang is a political science professor at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

Israel’s West Bank Tourism Drive Makes Palestinians Invisible – OpEd

$
0
0

By Jonathan Cook*

At first glance, it looked like a generous promotional stunt by Israel to aid the Palestinians’ struggling tourism industry. Israeli military authorities published this month a video on social media publicizing Palestinian attractions in the West Bank.

Most are Christian, including Jesus’s birthplace in Bethlehem – now the Church of the Nativity – and more obscure locations such as the monasteries of Mar Saba and Wadi Qelt, in mountainous desert terrain few pilgrim coaches ever reach.

The video was produced by COGAT, the Israeli military body that rules over Palestinians. It appears to be the latest initiative in defense minister Avigdor Lieberman’s so-called “carrot and stick” policy – a program that rewards and punishes Palestinians according to their behavior.

Lieberman has vowed to bypass the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and deal with Palestinians directly. The head of COGAT, Yoav Mordechai, has become a familiar face to ordinary Palestinians.

Last month, in his first live chat in Arabic on COGAT’s Facebook page, he answered questions from Palestinians on how they could receive Israeli work permits or resolve other bureaucratic headaches his officials created for them. Even Palestinians in Gaza defied Hamas to contact him.

The tourism video is similarly designed to reverse the Oslo accords, which held out a false promise two decades ago that the Palestinians would one day enjoy statehood and self-determination. Israel’s micromanagement of the territories is now such that it is even taking responsibility for attracting visitors to Palestine.

Except that is precisely not where COGAT’s video invites them. Instead it beckons tourists to visit “Judea and Samaria”, the Biblical names Israel uses to justify the illegal Jewish settlements that dominate much of the West Bank.

What is going on?

The deception at the campaign’s heart operates on several levels – and reveals much about Israel’s long-term policy towards the Palestinians.

Lieberman wants Palestinians to view Mordechai’s military administration as a benevolent father figure, the address for their problems, rather than Abbas. Who has the power to bring tourists to the territories and boost the Palestinian economy? COGAT, not the Palestinian Authority.

But Israel’s charity comes at a high price: Palestinians must jettison their national ambitions. The tourists can visit but Palestinians must first concede that these are Israeli sites.

A similar message is directed at the tourists. Christian pilgrims with little understanding of the Palestinians’ long history of dispossession are being encouraged to explore Greater Israel oblivious to which side of the Green Line they are on. The distinction between Nazareth and Bethlehem, in Israel and the occupied West Bank, respectively, is increasingly blurred.

Palestinians themselves are all but invisible. The video at no point mentions that they even live in “Judea and Samaria”. It shows buildings, not people.

This rebranding process is already well under way in Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in violation of international law decades ago. Tourism maps are littered with Jewish settler sites, marked as prominently as important holy places such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and Al Aqsa mosque. The latter is identified only by its Hebrew name, Temple Mount.

But in truth the tourism video is even less generous than it appears. Israel controls all entry into the West Bank, meaning that it is impossible for pilgrims to visit without contributing to the Israeli economy.

Israel announced in September a record budget for promoting tourism, a mainstay of its economy. The vast majority of visitors stay in Israeli hotels, are transported in Israeli coaches, eat in Israeli restaurants, visit Israeli gift shops to buy Israeli souvenirs using Israeli money.

In fact, most of the sites visited in the West Bank are controlled by Israel – from the Dead Sea and Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque to Herod’s acropolis near Bethlehem and the Baptism site on the River Jordan.

Tourists absorb the Palestinian presence only as a distant menace, highlighted by the bright red traffic signs warning that it is “dangerous to your lives” to stray from major roads. Pilgrims dart into Bethlehem for a brief tour of the Church of the Nativity, passing through a checkpoint in the oppressive, prison-like wall, hinting that Israel has good reason to treat Palestinians like felons.

If COGAT really wanted to change that impression, and help the Palestinian economy, it would encourage tourists to stay in Palestinian cities such as Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah and Jericho. And meet actual Palestinians.

Last week the Israeli parliament passed the first reading of a so-called legalization bill, which will retroactively authorize the settlers’ theft of land and property privately owned by Palestinians in the West Bank. The legislation extends to the settlers’ criminal acts the same legal protection as the state’s theft of Palestinian land.

The privatization of the looting of Palestinian territory is intimately connected to the authorities’ latest moves to plunder Palestine’s tourism economy. The overarching goal in both is the “creeping annexation” of the Palestinians’ homeland. Israel is ready to use any and every means at its disposal.

(A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.)

*Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit his website: www.jonathan-cook.net.

Kerry, Saudi Leaders Discuss Yemen Peace Road Map

$
0
0

By Rashid Hassan

US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed hope on Sunday that a new cease-fire in the Yemen conflict could be agreed within two weeks.

On his last visit to the Kingdom as secretary, Kerry said the United States will work with Britain, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to achieve a new pause in the fighting, which would be the eighth cease-fire attempt since hostilities escalated early last year.

He said that millions of Yemenis have been displaced during the war, who urgently need humanitarian assistance.

“We intend to do that with best of our abilities,” he said. “You can see from the humanitarian situation, which is dire and deteriorating rapidly, and that it is urgent that we try to bring this war to a close. We urge all concerned parties to come together to the negotiation table for peace in Yemen.”

He was speaking at a press conference following a high-level meeting with Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif with whom he discussed matters related to security and the fight against extremism.

He later joined Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir and regional counterparts for meeting at Al-Nasiriyah Palace on Sunday to discuss the situation in Yemen as also a political process to resolve issues in Yemen.

Kerry also met with Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at Al-Yamamah Palace and discussed regional developments.

Besides Kerry and Al-Jubeir, the closed door meeting was attended by British Minister of Middle East Affairs Tobias Ellwood, UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi and UN special envoy to Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to discuss developments in Yemen.

During the joint press conference with Kerry, Al-Jubeir said the group discussed a peace road map for Yemen.

He said the group agreed to emphasize restoring peace in Yemen, which focuses on the main three terms of reference that include the Gulf Sponsored initiative, carrying out the National Dialogue and the UN Security Council Resolution No. 2216 and stressing the significance and inclusion of the accord in terms of the transition of power.

‘No US curb on military support’

Al-Jubeir denied media reports that the United States had decided to limit military support, including a planned arms sale, to the Kingdom. “This news that has been leaked contradicts reality,” he said and added: “The reality is that converting regular bombs to smart bombs would be welcome because smart bombs are more accurate.”

He also condemned the terror attack by Daesh in the southern port city of Aden that killed soldiers lined up to receive their pay.

“In turbulent times, it is good to have solid friends, that is why the United States’ partnership with Saudi Arabia is rightly so valuable,” he said. “We are also concerned about the security of the Kingdom, and we want to bring Yemen war to a close in a way that protects the security of Saudi Arabia.”

On Iranian intervention in the region and supply of arms and ammunition to the rebels, Kerry called upon Iran to join peace process not only in Yemen but also in Syria and refrain from destabilization tendency.

Al-Jubeir said that Iran poses danger to the peace in the region.

He also expressed concern over the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which allows families of victims killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack to sue Saudi Arabia in court for damages.

He said he had expressed his concern to Congress during his visit, noting that it will set wrong precedent by allowing the courts to make rulings on government action. The US, he said, will face problems from African countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

However, he added that there will be no cut on bilateral investment due to this decision.

Echoing the sentiment Kerry said, “it is a bad law, we all opposed it for attack on sovereign immunity.”

The Fall Of Aleppo – Analysis

$
0
0

By Aron Lund

In a rapid offensive lasting less than a month, forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have recaptured the last opposition enclave in east Aleppo. On Monday evening, the army cleared street after street as artillery and air strikes pounded rebel positions northeast of Ramouseh district. By midnight, only a tiny speck of territory remained in opposition hands and celebratory gunfire lit the darkened skies over west Aleppo. On Tuesday evening, finally, news came of a deal brokered by Russia and Turkey that would see the remaining rebel fighters evacuate to opposition-held territory outside Aleppo, while civilians were to remain in the city under government control.

The collapse of the east Aleppo pocket marks the end of a four-and-a-half year struggle for control over northern Syria’s largest city, often referred to as the country’s industrial and economic capital.

To al-Assad loyalists, this is a great victory. In an email interview, a source close to the government in Damascus spoke of Aleppo’s “liberation from terror groups”, saying that the restoration of army control would “allow the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons to return to east Aleppo”.

There is clearly a sense of relief among government loyalists in Aleppo, who feel that their city may finally be on the path back to normality. On Monday night, the state broadcaster al-Ekhbariya ran loops of footage from street celebrations in pouring rain, where young men fired in the air and honked their car horns as television anchors handed out chocolates.

But to the Syrian opposition, the fall of east Aleppo is a political disaster that threatens to sap morale and undermine international support for the uprising. Yet opposition representatives struck a defiant tone.

“We can’t ignore the fact that the revolutionaries in Syria have been left alone to face a large group of enemies, including the regime, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, the militias, and Iraq,” Omar Mushaweh, a Turkey-based leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, told IRIN in an online interview.

But, like other opposition sympathisers interviewed, Mushaweh gave no hint of wanting to surrender. Indeed, with the al-Assad government’s own weaknesses demonstrated by its recent loss of Palmyra to the self-declared Islamic State, no one is under any illusions: the war will go on.

Civilians at Risk

Beyond the political consequences, however, recent events in Aleppo mark the brutal conclusion to four years of human suffering. To Syrians with friends and family in the collapsing rebel enclave, the past weeks have been a nightmare. All through Monday and Tuesday, desperate messages and pleas for help trickled out from east Aleppo through private contacts and social media. Though many civilians had already managed to flee into government-held western Aleppo, the last days of the enclave saw tens of thousands of people thronging the streets.

“People are moving around and fleeing as they can in a very volatile situation, as front lines continue to shift on a daily basis,” Linda Tom, a spokeswoman for the UN’s emergency aid coordination body, OCHA, told IRIN in an emailed comment on Saturday. Tom estimated that more than 40,000 civilians had already been displaced at that point, with a further 100,000 still in rebel-held territory, though she stressed that all figures were uncertain.*

Médecins Sans Frontières has called the fall of east Aleppo one of the worst crises they have seen in years. For some of the displaced civilians, fleeing meant risking everything – not only their lives, but also their homes.

Though the Syrian government claims to welcome and protect civilians fleeing eastern Aleppo, many pro-regime militias are poorly organised and undisciplined, and they have a history of looting and destroying abandoned property. Even the governor of Aleppo, Brigadier-General Hussein Diab, recently complained about the waves of looting that tend to follow every successful army offensive in Aleppo.

Though the UN has reported allegations that rebel groups forcibly prevented civilians from leaving in an attempt to use them as human shields, UN officials have also received reports that military-age men are being arrested after crossing into west Aleppo. Indeed, many civilians in the rebel zone seem to have held off fleeing to government territory until they simply had no other choice. “They have been killing us for so long, why would they have mercy?” one resident told the Washington Post.

The Syrian government is eager to deny any such abuses.

“Men of military age leaving the east are being checked and having their details taken down as part of the amnesty and reconciliation process,” a Syrian colonel working for the man running military operations in Aleppo, Lieutenant-General Ziad al-Saleh, said in a statement provided to IRIN by an intermediary. The colonel stated that those guilty of “severe criminality” will be tried and judged, but insisted that “the state is open to these people returning to their normal lives”.

Indeed, as much as they may want to completely crush the opposition and avenge themselves on rebel fighters, al-Assad’s men seem to realise that a softer touch is in their interest. Aleppo will be seen as a major test case for the government’s strategy of imposing local truces and forcing the evacuation of rebel fighters to peripheral regions like Idlib, as al-Assad shores up control over central Syria and major cities elsewhere.

Nevertheless, as the rebel pocket finally collapsed on Monday and Tuesday, opposition media filled up with references to Srebrenica 1995 and Rwanda 1994, even to the Holocaust. These claims were not backed up by reporting and even overtly pro-rebel media channels had, at the time of writing, produced no evidence of anything remotely similar to these atrocities. According to a spokesperson, the UN had received reports about the killing of 82 civilians at the hands of pro-al-Assad forces on Tuesday. As horrifying as that is, it is no genocide.

That said, the fears of opposition sympathisers in the city are real. Other deaths may have gone unreported and at this point no one is quite sure whether the evacuation deal will hold or what the future will bring. With no outside monitoring of the situation or of the conduct of al-Assad’s forces, there are great and legitimate concerns about the mistreatment of prisoners and vulnerable civilian populations. This gruesome chapter in Syria’s history is still being written.

* A note on the population statistics: Throughout the conflict, the number of civilians in rebel-held eastern Aleppo has been hotly disputed. Until the rebel stronghold finally collapsed, the United Nations had put the number of people in the east city at 250,000-275,000. After the attack began, most UN estimates seemed to add up to around 140,000 civilians. On 9 December, I was told by UN OCHA spokesperson Russell Geekie that in the absence of definite information it would be premature to conclude that the UN number had been too high, though Geekie acknowledged that preliminary figures did seem to point in that direction. During my most recent visit to Damascus in October and November, Syrian officials provided wildly varying estimates that ranged from 97,000 people (according to Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem) to 200,000 people (according to al-Assad). On December 11, a Damascus-based source close to the Syrian government insisted, in an email interview, that the UN has allowed itself to be misled by opposition activists and told me that in a final count the total number of civilians in eastern Aleppo “will not exceed 100,000.”

Ron Paul: What’s Missing From Russian Hack Argument? – OpEd

$
0
0

Without any proof or evidence being presented that Russia interfered with our election, we’re just seeing political grandstanding at this point by both President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

Have you noticed that there’s never any mention or concern about Secretary Clinton having a private server in her home?

If anything, that server would have made it much easier for Russia (or anyone else) to know what was going on with our government.

I discuss this, our CIA’s shenanigans, and much more below:

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Ron Paul: After Aleppo We Need A New Syria Policy – OpEd

$
0
0

Over the past week, eastern Aleppo was completely brought back under control of the Syrian government. The population began to return to its homes, many of which were abandoned when al-Qaeda-linked rebels took over in 2012. As far as I know, the western mainstream media did not have a single reporter on the ground in Aleppo, but relied on “activists” to inform us that the Syrian army was massacring the civilian population. It hardly makes sense for an army to fight and defeat armed rebels just so it can go in and murder unarmed civilians, but then again not much mainstream reporting on the tragedy in Syria has made sense.

I spoke to one western journalist last week who actually did report from Aleppo and she painted a very different picture of what was going on there. She conducted video interviews with dozens of local residents and they told of being held hostage and starved by the “rebels,” many of whom were using US-supplied weapons supposed to go to “moderates.”

We cannot be sure what exactly is happening in Aleppo, but we do know a few things about what happened in Syria over the past five years. This was no popular uprising to overthrow a dictator and bring in democracy. From the moment President Obama declared “Assad must go” and approved sending in weapons, it was obvious this was a foreign-sponsored regime change operation that used foreign fighters against Syrian government forces. If the Syrian people really opposed Assad, there is no way he could have survived five years of attack from foreigners and his own people.

Recently we heard that the CIA and Hillary Clinton believe that the Russians are behind leaked Democratic National Committee documents, and that the leaks were meant to influence the US presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor. These are the same people who for the past five years have been behind the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Isn’t supporting violent overthrow to influence who runs a country even worse than leaking documents? Is it OK when we do it? Why? Because we are the most powerful country?

We are a country sitting on $20 trillion in debt, living far beyond our means. Power can oftentimes be an illusion, and in any case it doesn’t last forever. We can be sure that the example we set while we are the most powerful country will be followed by those who may one day take our place. The hypocrisy of our political leaders who say one thing and do another does not go unnoticed.

We should end that hypocrisy starting with Syria. That government, along with its allies, seems to be on track to take their country back from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. The only sensible Syria policy is for the US to stop trying to overthrow their government, to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. It is a rule that is always good to remember, but perhaps especially important to recall at this time of year.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

India: Maoists And Desperate Measures – Analysis

$
0
0

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On December 16, 2016, Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadres hacked Dharmendra Kudami (33) to death in the Kurrempara area of Metapal village in the Dantewada District of Chhattisgarh on the suspicion of being a ‘police informer’. Kudami’s wife Ratna Kudami is the sarpanch (head of the Panchayat, the village local-self government institution) of Metapal village. An unnamed Police officer disclosed, “A group of Maoists, armed with bows and arrows, axes and knives stormed into the victim’s house and murdered Dharmendra in front of his family. Though the exact reason for the attack is yet to be ascertained, preliminary investigation suggests the ultras accused him of being a police informer.”

On December 12, 2016, Jeevan Singh Munda (38), the mukhiya (village headman) of Jargo panchayat was dragged out of his home by CPI-Maoist cadres masquerading as the Police and shot dead in the Tamar block area of the Ranchi District in Jharkhand. Commenting on the incident, Superintendent of Police (SP) Rajkumar Lakra, Ranchi (Rural), stated, “Four Maoist posters found near his body said he had paid the price for being a police informer. But, there is nothing on record to prove that the deceased was an informer.”

On December 5, 2016, a group of Maoist cadres killed Budhram Mudma (55) at his village, Mandem, under Farsegarh Police Station limits in the Bijapur District of Chhattisgarh. Maoist pamphlets recovered from the spot claimed that Mudma was killed because he was a ‘police informer’.

On November 11, 2016, Maoists tortured and killed Kartik Dhurve (23) in the Balaghat District of Madhya Pradesh on the suspicion that he was a ‘police informer’. An unnamed official stated, “They may have seen him talking to some senior police officials at some point of time and suspected him to be an informer.”

According to partial data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 49 civilians labelled ‘police informers’ have been killed by the Maoists in 2016 (data till December 18). The highest number of such killings has been reported from Chhattisgarh (15), followed by 10 in Odisha, nine in Jharkhand, six in Maharashtra, four in Bihar, three in Andhra Pradesh and two in Madhya Pradesh. During the corresponding period of 2015, Maoists had killed at least 57 civilians after branding them ‘police informers’: 17 in Chhattisgarh, followed by 16 in Odisha, eight in Maharashtra, six in Jharkhand, four each in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, and two in Telangana. Significantly, the total number of civilians killed by the Maoists so far in 2016, stands at 116, as compared to 93 during the corresponding period of 2015.

Since the formation of the CPI-Maoist on September 21, 2004, at least 2,965 civilian fatalities have been recorded in Maoist-linked violence. Out of these, 581 (19.59 per cent) were killed as alleged ‘police informers’.

Number of alleged ‘police informers’ killed by CPI-Maoist: September 21, 2004 – 2016*

State

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total

Andhra Pradesh

1 (01)
23 (132)
5 (18)
9 (24)
14 (28)
4 (10)

9(17)

3 (6)
5 (6)
0 (10)
1 (6)
4 (6)
3 (5)
81 (269)

Bihar

0 (10)
0 (25)
1 (16)
2 (23)
7 (35)
1 (37)
3 (54)
2 (39)
1 (16)
0 (21)
0 (7)
4 (4)
4 (8)
25 (295)

Chhattisgarh

2 (7)
1 (52)
0 (189)
9 (95)
8 (35)
26(87)
14 (72)
9 (39)
6 (26)
2(48)
4 (25)
17 (34)
15 (38)
113 (747)
Jharkhand
2 (6)
2 (49)
5 (18)
5 (69)
12 (74)
18 (74)
17 (71)
14 (79)
9(48)
5 (48)
1 (48)
6 (16)
9 (30)
105 (630)
Karnataka
0 (0)
0 (2)
0 (0)
1 (1)
0 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (7)
Madhya Pradesh
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (2)
2(2)
Maharashtra
0 (0)
1 (2)
1 (13)
4 (9)
0 (2)
9 (12)
7 (22)
12(34)
8 (21)
4 (10)
1 (9)
8 (11)
6 (9)
61 (154)
Odisha
0 (0)
2 (13)
0 (3)
0 (13)
7 (24)
15 (36)
25 (62)
21 (36)
10 (27)
13 (22)
16 (31)
16 (20)
10 (24)
135 (311)
Telangana
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (2)
2 (2)
0 (0)
3 (4)
Uttar Pradesh
0 (0)
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (2)
West Bengal
0 (0)
0 (5)
0 (9)
1 (6)
1 (19)
17 (134)
29 (328)
5 (41)
0 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
53 (544)
TOTAL
5 (24) 20.83%
30 (281) 10.67%
12 (266) 4.51%
31 (240) 12.91%
49 (220) 22.27%
91 (391) 23.27%
104 (626) 16.61%
66 (275) 24%
39 (146) 26.71%
24 (159) 15.09%
24 (128) 18.75%
57 (93) 61.29%
49 (116) 42.24%
581 (2965) 19.59%
Source: SATP, * Data till December 18, 2016
Figures in brackets indicate number of total civilians killed.

An analysis of fatalities indicates that Odisha recorded the highest number of such killings during this period, 135 alleged ‘informers’ out of a total of 311 civilian fatalities (43.40 per cent); followed by Chhattisgarh with 113 out of a total of 747 civilian fatalities (15.12 per cent); Jharkhand 105, out of 630 civilian fatalities (16.66 per cent); Andhra Pradesh, 81 out of a total of 269 civilian fatalities (30.11 per cent); Maharashtra, 61 of a total of 154 civilian fatalities (39.61 per cent); West Bengal 53 of a total of 544 civilian fatalities (9.74 per cent); Bihar, 25 of a total of 295 civilian fatalities (8.47 per cent); Telangana three of four civilian fatalities (75.00 per cent); two of a total of two civilian fatalities (100 per cent) each of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh; and Karnataka one of seven civilian fatalities (14.28 per cent).

These numbers, however, appear to be gross underestimates. Indeed, according to Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) data, available only since 2010, the number of alleged ‘police informers’ killed by Naxalites [Left Wing Extremists, LWEs] between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2016, stood at a much higher 1,081. The total fatalities recorded by the UMHA among civilians during the same period were 2,361. Thus, alleged ‘police informers’ constituted 45.78 per cent of all civilian killings.

Number of ‘police informers” killed during 2010 to 2016 (upto 30.11.2016)

Parameter

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016 (upto 30.11.2016)
Total

No. of Incidents

2213
1760
1415
1136
1091
1088
981
9684

Civilians killed

720
469
301
282
222
171
196
2361

No. of ‘police informers’ killed out of the civilians killed

323
218
134
113
91
92
110
1081

Percentage of ‘Police informers’ killed

44.86
46.48
44.51
40.07
40.99
53.80
56.12
45.78
No. of Jan Adalats held
75
97
62
63
54
40
20
411
Source: UMHA

The targeting of alleged ‘informers’ is an established Maoist policy. While some of the victims of such violence are abducted and subsequently killed with pamphlets left near their bodies, others are killed in front of villagers and family members. Often, a kangaroo court (Jan Adalat or “people’s court”) orchestrated, and a ‘sentence of death’ is pronounced and quickly and publicly executed as a warning to others. During 2016, at least 20 Jan Adalats were held by Maoists, while 40 such Adalats were held in 2015. No information is available regarding the number of civilians who were ‘punished’ by these ‘courts’.

The proportionate surge in such killings recorded since 2013 has obviously been prompted by the significant gains registered by the SFs in areas of earlier Maoist dominance, and overwhelmingly based on successful intelligence-led operations. The Maoists believe that this has occurred because of the deep penetration by intelligence agencies into ‘their areas’ with the help of the local population. Indeed, CPI-Maoist’s East Division ‘secretary’, Pratap Reddy aka Ramchandra Reddy aka Appa Rao aka Chalapathi, in an interview published on July 21, 2016, stated, “… I must add that in the conspiracy to eliminate the Maoists party, the ruling classes and the State Government have been exploiting people in the tribal areas by converting them as police informer and agents. Such people are being given arms by the police and a special police officer (SPO) network created. It is such elements that we are eliminating.”

A continuous flow of information from Maoist areas has been critical to the cumulative successes that have decimated the Maoists over recent years, and will remain the core of future successes. The Maoists can naturally be expected to fight back with everything available to them, and targeted killings are likely to rise with the reverses they suffer. Sustaining intelligence flows and protecting their sources are, consequently, urgent operational imperatives. An environment of security needs to be progressively consolidated, and ending targeted killings by the Maoists is an integral element of any strategy to do so.

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management


India: Volatility Persists In Chandel, Manipur – Analysis

$
0
0

By Nijeesh N.*

On December 15, 2016, at least three Manipur Police personnel were killed and another 11 were injured when suspected militants ambushed road opening parties (ROPs) of the Manipur Police at two different places in Chandel District. The first ambush occurred at around 6 am [IST] near the Lokchao Bridge in Lokchao village. Two Police constables were killed and 11 were wounded. M-79 grenade launcher shells and spent bullets of M-16 assault rifles were recovered from the ambush site. Around two hours later, a Police team coming from the State capital, Imphal, was attacked in the Bongyang area of the same District, and one Policeman on ROP duty was killed. Though no outfit has claimed the attacks so far, based on a report filed by State Director General of Police (DGP) L.M. Khaute, the Manipur Government sent a report to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) on December 16, 2016, stating that the Isak-Muivah faction of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) was suspected to be behind the twin attacks. Chandel District shares a border with Myanmar.

Earlier on November 26, 2016, at least five troopers of the Army’s Para Special Force deployed along the Manipur-Myanmar border sustained serious injuries when militants ambushed a patrol party in the Sajik Tampak area in Chandel District. Though the soldiers retaliated, all the militants managed to escape across the border, taking advantage of the densely forested area. The United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia (UNLFWESEA), claimed responsibility for the attack. For a long time the Sajik Tampak area, which is close to the Myanmar border, was the ‘headquarters’ of several insurgent groups, but Security Forces (SFs) had eventually pushed them out and established a permanent camp. On April 17, 2015, the Khaplang faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-K) joined hands with three of the most active terror outfits in the Northeast: the Independent faction of United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA-I); IK Songbijit faction of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS); and Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO), to form UNLFWESEA. CorCom [Coordination Committee], a conglomerate of six Manipur Valley-based militant outfits have also reportedly extended ‘moral support’ to the Front.

On October 29, 2016, a non-local shopkeeper, Dharmendra Kumar aka Aju (40), was shot dead by unidentified militants in the Moreh area of Chandel District. The deceased’s pregnant wife, Chanda, was also severely injured in the firing. Police said they suspected that the attack was part of a possible extortion bid.

Chandel Distinct had witnessed a major attack on SFs on May 22, 2016, when six Assam Rifles (AR) personnel, including one Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), were killed, and another seven personnel were injured in an ambush at Hengshi village in the Chakpikarong tehsil (revenue unit) of the District. The militants had triggered an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) before opening fire on the AR convoy, which was returning to their Battalion Headquarters at Joupi village in Chakpikarong tehsil of Chandel District, after assessing a landslide in Holingjang. The militants took away four AK-47 rifles, one light machine gun, one INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) rifle and ammunition from the SFs. Notably, on June 4, 2015, in one of the worst militant attacks targeting SFs’ in the entire Northeast, 18 Army personnel had been killed and another 11 injured, when militants ambushed a convoy of 46 troopers of the Army’s 6 Dogra Regiment at Moltuk village (just about 30 kilometers away from Hengshi village) in the Khengjoy tehsil of the Chandel District.

Insurgency-related Incidents in Chandel District: 2000-2016*
Year
Civilian Fatalities
SFs Fatalities
Terrorists Fatalities
Total Killed
Incidents of Explosion
Incidents of Abduction
Incidents of Arms Recovery
Incidents of Arrest
Incidents of Surrender

2000

0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0

2001

3
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0

2002

0
2
12
14
0
1
0
1
0

2003

0
2
10
12
0
1
0
0
0

2004

3
25
3
31
0
0
0
2
0

2005

3
5
2
10
0
0
0
0
0

2006

6
5
22
33
4
1
4
0
0

2007

22
26
39
87
4
1
8
2
1

2008

9
4
17
30
6
0
10
1
0

2009

1
16
42
59
1
0
26
5
0

2010

1
12
0
13
8
1
4
5
0

2011

0
0
1
1
4
0
5
24
1

2012

7
3
3
13
2
2
19
31
0

2013

2
3
1
6
8
0
2
20
2

2014

0
2
0
2
5
1
21
31
1

2015

2
21
6
29
7
2
7
20
1

2016

2
9
0
11
8
1
7
5
0

Total

61
136
164
361
57
11
113
147
6
Source: SATP, *Data till December 18, 2016.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 11 persons, including two civilians and nine SF personnel, have been reported killed in insurgency-related incidents in the Chandel District during the current year (data till December 18, 2016). During the corresponding period of 2015, the District had recorded 29 fatalities (two civilians, 21 SF personnel and six militants). There were no more fatalities in 2015 thereafter. It was in the year 2007 that the District had recorded its highest number of fatalities, 87, including 22 civilians, 26 SF personnel and 39 militants.

One of the five Hill Districts of Manipur, Chandel was formed on May 13, 1974, and covers an area of 3,313 square kilometers in the south-eastern part of the State. Formerly known as Tengnoupal District, the District Headquarters was shifted to Chandel in 1983, and the District was subsequently renamed Chandel. It is the fourth largest District of Manipur, bordering Myanmar on the south, Ukhrul District on the east, Churachandpur District on the south and west, and Thoubal District to the north. With a population of 144,182 (2011 Census), Chandel is the second least populous District in the State, after Tamenglong. Around 86 per cent of the total population of the District is tribal, from about 20 different tribes, prominently consisting of Anal, Lamkang, Moyon, Monsang, Chothe and Maring (collectively known as old Kuki), Thadou and Zou, as well as Meiteis including Muslims (Meitei Pangal) in small numbers. Nearly 88 per cent of the population lives in a total of 361 villages. Moreh town, the international trade centre of the State, lies on the southernmost part of the District.

In spite of its proximity to the centre of political and administrative power in the State, Chandel remains one of the most backward Districts of Manipur. A significant proportion of the blame for the state of affairs goes to the raging militancy in the District. The proximity of the District to Myanmar, which has been used by various insurgent groups as a safe haven for years, has been the bane of Chandel. These militant outfits frequent the District en route to and from Myanmar, where they have their camps. Major insurgent groups such as NSCN-IM, NSCN-K, ULFA-I, People’s Liberation Army (PLA), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), are the most active in the District, as these outfits have been able to establish mobile camps with very efficient informer networks in the hills of Western Myanmar. According to recent reports, an estimated 2,000 cadres belonging to a dozen outfits have taken shelter in Myanmar.

The entire area along the India-Myanmar border, including Chandel District, has been witnessing deadly militant attacks on SFs in the recent past and remains volatile. According to partial data compiled by SATP, between January 1, 2000, and December 18, 2016, there have been at least 751 fatalities, including 130 civilians, 182 SF personnel and 439 militants, in 10 Districts, spread across the four northeastern States [Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland] of India that shares borders with Myanmar. Worryingly, Chandel District is the worst affected, accounting for 361 fatalities (61 civilians, 136 SF personnel and 164 militants) over this period.

The Indian Army had carried out ‘surgical operations’ inside Myanmar after the June 4, 2015, Chandel attack and reportedly killed several insurgents in different militant camps. Nevertheless, vulnerabilities along the border persist. On August 19, 2016, Union Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju stated that India had requested Nyapyidaw to take action against insurgent groups taking shelter in Myanmar: “There are reports of some leaders of insurgent outfits from the north east taking shelter in Myanmar and we are in constant talks with the Government of that country requesting them to take action against them.” Further, on September 5, 2016, a report claimed that New Delhi had started supplying advanced weaponry and gadgets to the Myanmar Army to enable it to set up its military headquarters close to areas occupied by the militant groups.

While its proximity to Myanmar Border has made Chandel vulnerable to insurgent activities for long, recent developments have added to its susceptibilities. Thus, in the evening of October 30, 2016, the State Government decided to upgrade the Sub-divisions of Sadar Hills and Jiribam to full-fledged Districts. The Government subsequently reversed its decision on October 31, 2016, as it was opposed by the Naga organisations who felt that the upgrade would help form more Kuki-dominated Districts in the State. The United Naga Council (UNC) – the apex body of the Naga community in Manipur – had launched an indefinite economic blockade from November 1, 2016, which is still in force. Stringent measures to lift the ongoing blockade as early as possible are urgently required, as the current situation has the potential to adversely impact the security situation across the Northeast region.

In the meantime, on December 8, 2016, the State Government announced the creation of seven new Districts – Kangpokpi, Noney, Tengnoupal, Pherzol, Kamjong, Kakching, and Jiribam (partially reversing the earlier reversal of October 31). These seven new Districts were carved out of the earlier nine, including Chandel. Tengnoupal was carved out of Chandel and the formal inauguration was done on December 15, 2016, the day of the last attack. In fact the Police team that was targeted near Lokchao Bridge was heading for Tengnoupal, where State Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh was scheduled to attend the programme to inaugurate the new District. Despite the attack, the Chief Minister attended the programme.

As in the case of Manipur as a State, there has been relative improvement in the security situation in Chandel District. Nevertheless, the cyclical nature of violence in the District (and the State) remains a perpetual threat, sharply accentuated in Chandel as a result of the peculiar vulnerabilities arising from its shared borders with Myanmar, and the concentration of insurgent safe havens there.

*Nijeesh N.
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

The Burden Of Muslims – OpEd

$
0
0

Islam is a significant faith today with 1.6 billion followers and a considerable section of them living as a minority community in many countries, thereby battling the issues of discrimination, stereotypes and identity crisis.

With the rise of Islamophobic brigades across Europe, Islamophobia as a psycho-social phenomenon has gained momentum across the western world and the waves of hatred even crossed to Africa and Asia. Further the consistent political instability, bloodshed and rise of terrorism in Muslim dominated regions has increased the labeling against Muslims and the escalation of religious violence and emergence of radical brigades like ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida and scores of other small groups Islam.

People have began fearing Islam without even knowing about the faith as the mass media, social media, academia, intelligentsia, hate mongers, rumour mills, etc, have played a big role in aggravating the problem of Islamophobia. Unlawful and violent actions have began to be directly linked to their faith resulting in Islamophobia. Such a massive perception has been further strengthened by the socio-political instability in most of the Muslim dominated countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

The Arab Spring proved the last nail in the coffin. This paper is a conceptual overview of the burden that Muslims face in the form of labels and stereotypes across the world. The paper is mainly based on secondary sources, besides personal experiences, observation and conversations with people on the theme.

Muslim World in Crisis

In the worst humanitarian crisis in Syria, chased to death in Iraq by the violent ISIS, jeopardized in Iran, destroyed aerially and starved in Palestine, in search of identity in India, alienated in Australia, secularized in Turkey, stereotyped in America, segregated in Britain, restricted in France, bombed and impoverished in Afghanistan, killed unaccounted in Nigeria, estranged, disturbed and confused in Egypt, oppressed in Tunisia and Bangladesh, communalized and in identity crisis in Sri Lanka, radicalized and sensitized in Pakistan and Egypt and massacred in Myanmar, every Muslim on the globe is witnessing an existential challenge besides a plethora of socio-political and security issues in the contemporary times.

Apart from these challenges there are even more grave challenges from the community within, such as acute conservatism, identity politics and victimization of vulnerable Muslims like women, emerging new violent youth cultures, extremist ideologies, acute sectarianism, economic crisis and allied issues of poverty, lack of quality education, access to good health care, housing, etc.

Such a situation has led to chaos and is leading to the universality of Muslims feeling insecure and ignored. This feeling or psyche of insecurity has led to the phenomenon of Ghettoization in many parts of the world where Muslims feel safer to live in their own dense clusters and which has contributed to a sense of polarization, a feeling of ‘we’ and ‘them’, and a sense of hatred for others.

The cluster formation/ghettoization has also occurred because of the discrimination against Muslim minorities in many countries of the globe.

Suffering Minority Battling Stereotypes

The plight of being a Minority has been more consciously realized by the members of this community especially due to the repercussions of many factors including biased media coverage, misrepresentation and misinterpretation in literature and cinema, exaggeration of gender violence and other shameful issues among Muslims by writers and academics, the wrath of Islamophobia, characterized by a general understanding of extremism and intolerant nature of Muslims especially in European and American belts.

Also the novel enigmas of interpreting Islam even at the intellectual level, the nuisance of stereotypes ingrained in non-Muslim cultures and communities pertaining Muslims as separated, segregated, extremist, violent etc., the problem of comparison and relativity often by non-Muslims while reading or unfolding on Islam in text books and at once turning relational and comparative of their own cultures, believing and concluding that Islam is the religion of nomads and desert wonderers or warriors. Hence the developing negative perception and multiplying the same while teaching or preaching to young generations, is one of the heinous stumbles Islam has been facing in contemporary era.

Also as discussed by many scholars, especially in Europe, the word ‘new’ is employed to introduce the origin story of monotheistic religions, especially Islam. Every now and then, we come across an array of new and hostile description of Islam and the painting of religions, chiefly Islam, in diabolic colors of radicalism and barbarism. Even the White Collars of western society have added new words and names like Islamism, Islamicate, extremism, and concepts like Islamophobia and Islamic fundamentalism to their common lexicon to express their indifferent attitude towards Islam.

Adversely these words have gained much adoption far and wide, particularly among research and academic circles, some defending it, while others trying to look for perspectives from nowhere and new ventures to go with the theme and proliferate it in different aspects. It seems Islam is being more and more subjected to destructive criticism without any regard to its tenets and without imbibing the total perception of its principles.

Maligning Muslims: The Propaganda politics

Some of the common perceptions that strengthen Islamophobia even in Asian societies are that Muslims are naturally violent, killers, terrorists, inhuman, fundamentalist unhygienic, and even immoral. Their veil reflects their orthodoxy and backwardness. Muslims produce more children for Jihad and violence; therefore they remain educationally backward, etc. Such stereotypes later culminate into an identity consciousness of Muslims of their being minorities.

People’s perception of the Muslims remains unchanged amid the continuing religious violence, such as the violent Islamic State (ISIS) killing thousands in the name of Islami. Ghannoushi (2014), while discussing the contemporary Muslim scenario and Islamophobia writes, “In spite of the deluge of images and narratives of Islam that has flooded the public space since September 11th, knowledge and understanding of the subject has remained limited”ii.

On Islam being one of the most misunderstood, rather misinterpreted, religions of the world, scholar Ilyas Ba-Yunus in his paper, ‘Ideological Dimensions of Islam-A Critical Paradigm’iii, argues, “Islam has become all things to all people, many non-Muslims don’t seem to know it by its real name, it has been called Mohammedianism, Mohamadism, Islamism, Moslemism or the Muslim religion and many relate it with esoteric Sufi thought”.

Some scholars like Susan Dougles and Ross Dunn (2003) writing on ‘Islam In American Text Booksiv’ argue that, “In chapters devoted to 20th century Islam figures mainly in connection with the themes of world war, modernization, oil politics, women’s roles, and Islamic resurgence. New generations are given an abhorrable portrait of Islam as anti western, often as merely militant and extremist”.

They further write, “The pity is the majority of the non-Muslim writers on Islam fail to paint a consistent or thoroughly accurate picture of the faith or its adherents history as there has always been a widespread flow and confusion and bias in western scholarships in their reflections about non-western cultures especially beliefs and faithsv”.

Edward Said on the inherent bias of the western scholars on Islam argues “the representation of Islam in western scholarly writings is deeply implicated in the power relations between researchers and researched and is partly constructed not so much by independent observations and evidences as by the pre-existing biases of the scholars themselves” (Orientalism, 1978).

A plethora of preconceived notions and self constructed false dogmas of Muslims have been carved out in non-Muslim minds, which again is a big burden on Muslims because their religion is solely taken and understood as the criteria of their actions and social behavior. Also the hateful outlook and violence against Muslims has started against all the three identities of being a Muslim, be it Islam or being Muslim as ascribed identity; as chosen identity; or as declared identity and all the three are ridiculed and looked hatefully especially by western eyes which is termed as White Man’s Burden in sociological lexicon.

The increasing hostility against Muslims is witnessed and observed in two aspects, some confrontations and activities are carried out against Muslims as direct targets be it ridicule and even teasing of veiled Muslim women, the use of slurs, abusive language against Muslims, or even violent attacks. Another aspect is the carrying out of hateful activities directly against Islam and in this category could be included false writings against Islam, anti-Islam websites, the Terry Jones’ Qur’an burning threats, blasphemies, Denmark cartoons, etc.. All present a distorted view, but are treated as authentic opinions on seeing Islam and the political violence among Muslim communities correlative or political instability in Muslim countries solely to be described and theorized as Islamic violence or Islamism has been quite a growing trend.

One such example is the use of a lone prism by scholars and writers to see the internal chaos and political instability in Pakistan as mere Islamic terrorism or violence because the country is a Muslim state, etc, — seeing the growing radical transformation of non-Muslim views against Muslims and this has even infected a section of Muslims who are not aware about Islam and therefore prefer to call themselves secular Muslims.

Understanding the rationality and dynamics of terrorism, from violent attacks to suicide bombings, it is seen that all too often the first speculation and unproved blame is thrown upon Muslims, which rationalizes and routinizes Islamophobia among non-Muslims especially western ones.

Additionally, while the media memorializes the killing of the 9/11 victims and treats it as the largest massacre that has ever happened on the globe, coupled with a journalistic style of discussing civilian killings either in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, it is often maintained that such events are justified and something normal in the war on terror. Those 19 suicide attackers are highlighted everywhere, but the mayhem of open licensed killers in the guise of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified along with drone attacks on tribal villagers.

Routine killings of Palestine civilians by Israel are given a different connotation, and retaliation by Muslims to safeguard their lives and dignity is labeled as terrorism. The hijacking of a westerner somewhere on earth is given more hype than the hijacking and grabbing of a whole nation such as Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Tibetvi.

It is simply conveyed that rich people’s opinions, policies, propaganda and lives are more dignified, dearer and important than non-western voices — slogans for justice and the killing of the poor are justified with a vicious and venomous, but powerful and polite expression. Those who argue that Muslim alienation around the world is mere rhetoric need to have a rethink of the moral travesties against Muslims, especially by the western block.

Debating Iran’s nuclear program and to impose bans and threats of attack (simply to gain supremacy in the region) is a great concern for America, but being the world’s largest pollutant is a sign of industrial development and debating its own nuclear program is forbidden for all. It seems beyond cognition to understand why terrorism, despite being a form of political violence and an offshoot of political instability, is always labeled as Islamic and painted as militant Islam or pan-Islamic terrorism. It is, as per subjective perception to paint Islam as radical and indoctrinate those especially in western masses who are converting to Islam, as the political powers deem Islam’s growth as a future threat.

Also it is to impose acute suffering upon its followers, backed by Islam’s core enemies be it Zionists or other communal elements. Muslims are now bearing the brunt of being Muslims, as even post-9/11 born American Muslim children are teased and called by their non-Muslim peers as terrorists because of the socialization at home and structure of curriculum and the approach of portraying of Muslims’ history in text books. Also instead of looking into the background of violence or confrontation, non-Muslim psyche readily blames Muslims, not for anything but because they are Muslims. The burden upon Muslims for being Muslims is gaining intensity as the gulf between the multiculturalism, intercultural dialogue and pluralism is increasing mainly because of the western political discourses and the over repeated rhetoric of Muslims as intolerant, violent and a threat to peace and the different interpretations of Islam in the west and speculated down to the rest of the globe. Inter-faith dialogue a solution, I keep thinking.

Islamophobia: A Social Tsunami

Fear or hatred of Islam or of Muslims is now generally understood as Islamophobia. Its origin and causes may be debatable, but particularly after 9/11 the phrase gained much popularity and proliferated across the globe with the trend of dislikenness toward Muslims, calculated discrimination, illicit labeling, negative stereotyping, violence in the form of ban on veil (Hijab) in France, physical assault and passing of insulting remarks on Muslims in many other countries, apprehensive and distrustful outlook especially toward beard wearing Muslims as anti-social elements, increase in arrests, captivity and incarceration rates of Muslim youth, tortures and other physical and psychological violence and cinema of and on portraying Muslim cultural or religious features or demeanor like traditional dress patterns, beard wearing as terrorist symbols in films, serials, etc. Even now more often than not, terms like Islamic fundamentalism, militant Islam, radicalism, pan-Islamic terrorism, Talibanizationvii, extremism, orthodoxy, etc., are used synonymously with Islam.

Of concern also is the anti-Muslim stance of the west with regard to Islam being a growing trend in Europe and a big schema of communal hate mongers and their unswerving failure to keep masses away from embracing Islam or being influenced why it — like Tony Blaire’s sister-in-law’s accepting Islam and her statement of feeling more secure in pardah, after converting to Islam, etc.

Their consistent, but futile attempts of maligning it, such as by Kurt Westergaard’s blasphemous cartoons in Jyllands-Posten (Danish daily), the Gujarat Massacre and a series of anti-Muslim riots in India, Rohingya Muslim carnage in Myanmarviii, Terry Jones’ Qur’an burning threats on the 9/11 anniversary in Florida (forgetting that it will in turn magnetize more people to read and be influenced with the holy revelation) and America’s speedy role and quick partaking of its cronies against the war on Muslims, attacks diverse Muslim ethnicities under the garb of the so-called ‘war on terrorix. The worst is that the countries of Europe are now even contending and competing among themselves on Islamophobia actions.

Western media’s redefining Islam in the context of dividing Muslims into self-formed groups like secularists, liberal Muslims, democracy-loving Muslims, fundamentalists, pan-Islamists, Islamic militants, terrorists, good Muslims, bad Muslims, broad minded and free thinking, etc., simply is an aim to befool innocent Non-Muslims and simultaneously to create divisions and flourish hatred and abhorrence among Muslims of diverse backgrounds and regions across the globe.

The phobia in Islamophobia reduces the complex set of institutionalized discrimination against European Muslims to a psychological state in the minds of Christians and secular Europeans. Dictionary definitions refer to phobia as an intense, abnormal, or illogical fear. Yet Muslim relations with Christians in Europe involve much more than fear of the former by the latter. Recent research in the United Kingdom demonstrates that Muslim residents have the lowest levels of income and the highest levels of unemployment, receive the fewest health care services, do poorly in the school system, and have the worst living conditions (E. Ozyurek, 2005)x.

Way back in November, 2009, John Esposito, a professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and a renowned writer on Islamic issues, wrote in his article, titled, ‘Are Swiss Alps Threatened by Minarets?’ that the Swiss people voted and urged to approve a move to ban the construction of new minarets in the country. He further argued, “Last year (2008) at a European meeting of intelligence officials from the US and Europe, a Swiss participant commented on this referendum on minarets. He was sure it would go nowhere since, as he said, Switzerland is a very pluralistic society, its Muslim population is relatively small (about 400000) and there were few mosques with minarets. However, this stunning Swiss vote (57 percent) approving a referendum to ban minarets, was really not all that surprising, considering the growing power of Islamophobia. In both Europe and America right-wing politicians, political commentators, media personalities and religious leaders continue to feed a growing suspicion of mainstream Muslims by fueling a fear that Islam, not just Muslim extremism, is a threat’.

The term Islamophobia has now become popular more or less everywhere particularly in Europe, where the Islamic threat is considered the enemy within, where as another nomenclature for it is, Islamic terrorism, which is on the rise in the United States, where the new enemy is perceived to be external.

Defining and explaining political relations in terms of religious categories is the new trend. Similar to Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia also assumes a homogenous religion and culture. Furthermore, it conceals that real people, rather than an abstract category of religion or culture, are being discriminated against. Matti Bunzl, a European anthropologist in his paper, ‘Between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Some thoughts on the new Europe’, (American Ethnologist, Vol. 32, No. 4, November 2005) argues, ‘anti-Semitism was invented in the late 19th century to police the ethnically pure nation-state.  On the other hand, Islamophobia is a recent formation that seeks to make the supranational European Union a fortress against migrants.  He goes further: traditional anti-Semitism has run its historical course with the end of the nation-state, and, consequently, Islamophobia is becoming the defining condition of the New Europexi.

This goes without saying that the relations of Muslims with others, be that in west or anywhere else in the contemporary era, are based primarily on a fragile calm, false sense of mutual respect and silent distrust to the core. It is wrong to assume that non-Muslims are anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim, but the fact of the matter is that the idea of Muslimness has been wrongly portrayed and interpreted by the media, the repercussions of which are manifest in the ongoing anti-Islamic propaganda, blasphemies against Islam every now and then, stereotypes against Muslims as violent, terrorists, fundamentalists, etc. leading to the acute, polarization, marginalization and Ghettoization among them. Such a perpetual chaos has affected their psychology and sociology as well.

Hallow and blind labeling against them amidst the issues of insecurity in minority belts has restricted them to their own communities, affected their social mobility, social demeanor, education, career prospects, women emancipation and empowerment, etc. Today they are the prisoners of their own consciousness and spatial restrictions and clustering has reduced them to nothing but a herd of species that purely goes together for they profess a common faith.

Islam means peace, but its enemies like Zionists and secular Europeans never let its actual meaning to flourish — instead much of the world’s terror activities are labeled as Islamic and people who are not familiar to the Islamic ethos are made to believe that it is the religion of terror.

Muslims need not be provoked be what Zionist’s aspire for Esra Ozyurek writes in her article, ‘The politics of cultural unification, secularism, and the place of Islam in the New Europe’ (American Ethnologist, 32:4, 509-12). ‘The post-Cold war understanding of Europeanness in cultural and religious terms transformed the cluster of exclusionary and oppressive practices directed toward the Muslim populations of Europe. Activists and intellectuals who wanted to attract attention to and fight against these practices coined the term Islamophobia. Although this neologism is gaining popularity in Europe, I believe that the term is itself indicative of the exclusionary place envisioned for Muslims in the New Europe. Hence, I want to problematize several assumptions underlying the choice of this term for a large set of interrelated practices. I suggest that the term reveals how people reduce complex relations of power between majorities and minorities to issues of culture and psychology. Particularly for this reason, use of the term Islamophobia limits the otherwise well-intended efforts of those fighting against racism, xenophobia and discrimination in Europe.xii

Academically speaking, several authors have emerged on Islamophobia like Asad Talal (Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity, 2003), Balibar, Etienne (We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship, 2004) Mamdani, Mahmood (Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, 2004) Taylor, Charles (Modes of Secularism. In Secularism and Its Critics, 1998), Matti Bunzl (Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe, 2007), Gordon Conway (Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, 1997) and Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy by Peter Gottschalk in 2007 and the most recent one, ‘Islamophobia: The Ideological Campaign Against Muslims’ by Stephen Sheehi, 2010, who have written on the theme by and large thereby unraveling some of the interesting socio-political realities strengthening Islamophobia in the contemporary era.

The need of the hour is to address the issue of the enlarged societal hostility towards Islam as a belief system and towards Muslims and the issue of Islamophobia, the fear of Islam along with the stereotypes, prejudices and intolerance that are building up against Islam and its followers. In an era when many Americans wonder whether Islam and the West inherently must clash, Islamophobia explores how this view in part derives from centuries-old stereotypes of Muslims as violent, oppressive, and intolerant. America’s casual demonizing and demeaning of Muslims and Islam is multiplying. Peter Gottschalk, the author of ‘Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy (2007), argues that Islamophobia-a racist like bias against Muslims based on stereotypes, is very real, manifesting in some cartoons that are obviously biased and others that appear on the surface to be more sympathetic. Cartoons, symbolic of wider feelings and fear about Islam, reflect misunderstandings and prejudice among Westerners and, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, often serve to widen cultural rifts particularly between Muslims and American Christians. Symbols and cartoons, like the veil, the mosque, scimitars and large-nosed profiles, can be misused or conflicting.

Epilogue

A fundamental misunderstanding of the Muslim world in general has led to a chaotic situation and the brand of Islamophobia has fostered a sense of insecurity among all people on the globe — Muslims fear that they will be besieged by non-Muslims, and non-Muslims are scared of Muslims for they (Muslims) have been labeled as fundamentalists, hardliners, religious fanatics, non-secular, irrational, orthodox, old minded, undemocratic, pre-modern, backward, uncultured terrorists and finally violent. This repeated lie has creating panic among all and a clear connection between the fear and hate exhibited towards Muslims and Islam has contributed to an unfriendly nature among people toward each other. Also the way Muslims are represented in the media, though primarily in political cartoons, irreverent statements and cartoon pictures of the prophet Mohammad, offensive and hateful comments against Islam, etc., reinforces the common stereotypes for Muslims, which often adds fuel to the fire by simply breeding hatred, violence, chaos and confusion among each other.

Muslims undoubtedly are today living a life of chaos, dilemma and alienation. Where the west has been showing increasing trends in Islamophobia, the east has impoverished and linked them to terrorism if not branded or attacked their faith directly. Massacres and carnages against them go unaccounted and unreported like the recent slaughter of Muslims in Rohingya of Myanmar. Today they are living the life with a burden of poverty, marginalization, spatial and security issues. Right from the west and the Horn of Africa to the Arab block to South Asia and in all other zones of the globe, Muslims are faced by labels and issues living a life of apprehension or poverty or insecurity or oppression. Muslim exclusion needs an immediate redress and the United Nations must play a key role in this.

Muslims need to be understood and the culture of blind stereotyping must go by de-linking terror from religion. This alienated section of the world populace needs both opportunity and a sympathetic platform to express their views. Islamophobia needs a intellectual solution via debating Islam and the blind linkage of violence to it. Also implicating Muslim youth in heinous charges, mostly of terrorism, as a trend must come to an end. The representation and reality of Muslims round the globe has to be done for the sake of justice and human rights.

[This article was first published by Journal of Society in Kashmir (2015 issue) at University of Kashmir, and has been edited from the original]

Notes:
i. Focus group interview with researchers at Jamia Millia Islamia Campus, December 17, 2014.
ii. Soumaya Ghannoushi. (November 27, 2014.) The Battle for Islam. London: The Huffington Post.
iii. See Interpreting Islam edited by Hastings Donnan.2002.P. 99
iv. Douglass, Susan L., Ross E. Dunn. “Interpreting Islam in American Schools.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Jul. 2003: 52-77. Vol 588, Islam: Enduring Myths and Changing Realities.
v. See Islam and the Textbooks: A Report of the American Textbook Council. Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2003, pp. 69-78.
vi. Adfar Shah. July 21, 2011.Tibetan Muslims in Exile: A Sociological Profile. Jamia Journal. Available online at: http://jamiajournal.com/2011/07/21/opinion-tibetan-muslims-in-exile-a-sociological-profile/
vii. Adfar Shah. (January 22, 2013).Pakistan’s Specter of Political Instability. Eurasia Review. Available online at: http://www.eurasiareview.com/22012013-the-specter-of-political-instability-and-pakistan-oped/
viii. See Tun Khin. (February 4, 2014). Another Massacre of Rohingya – Another Failure to Act.the Huffington Post.U.K..Available online at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tun-khin/rohingya-muslims_b_4717218.htm
ix. Adfer Rashid Shah. (15 October, 2013 ). Libya’s Stolen Revolution: Mapping the Post-Gaddafi Era. Available online at: http://www.countercurrents.org/shah151013.htm.
x. See Ozyürek, Esra. 2005. The Politics of Cultural Unification, Secularism and the Place of Islam in the New Europe. American. Ethnologist 32 (4): 509–12. doi:10.1525/ae.2005.32.4.509.
xi. Sharif Islam. (August 23, 2006). A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and the Nation-State. Available online at: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/islam230806.html
xii. See Adfar Shah.2013. The Beleaguered Faith: Negotiating Islamophobia in Sociological Contour. Eurasia Review

References
Asad, T. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford University Press.
Balibar, E. 2004. We, the People of Europe?-Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton University Press.
Ba-Yunus, I. 2002. Ideological Dimensions of Islam-A Critical Paradigm in Hastings Donnan’s Interpreting Islam. Sage. London.
Bunzl, M. 2005. Between Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Some Thoughts on the New Europe. Wiley Publisher. (Vol. 32, No. 4, November 2005).
Bunzl, M. 2007. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe. The University of Chicago Press.
Conway, G. 1997. Islamophobia: Its Features and Dangers: a Consultation Paper. Runnymede Trust. Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.
Deepa, K.2012.Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. Chicago:Haymarket Books.
Donnan, H. (Ed). 2002. Interpreting Islam. Sage. London.
Esposito, J. (March 18, 2010). Are Swiss Alps Threatened by Minarets? The World Post, a Partner of the Huffington Post and Berggruen Institute on Governance.
Esposito, J., & Mogahed, D. (2007). Chapter 3: What Makes a Radical? In Who speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. (65-98). New York: Gallup Press.

Crazy Election, Inexplicable Presidential Appointments: What Next For US And World? – OpEd

$
0
0

By Harold A. Gould*

Charges of election fraud have become standard rhetorical fare in the American political environment since Donald Trump began raising this bugaboo during his recently concluded presidential campaign, despite abundant evidence to the contrary emanating from empirical sources that any significant electoral fraud ever occurred.

According to the Washington Post, for example, three academics who investigated election results in several states found no significant evidence of widespread voter tampering: “Our results do not imply that there was no fraud at all in the 2016 presidential contest, nor do they imply that this contest was error-free… They do strongly suggest, however, that the voter fraud concerns fomented and espoused by the Trump campaign are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 presidential election.”

In point of fact, if indeed any kind of significant “fraud” has occurred in the American electoral process it pertains to the manner in which Republican-controlled state legislative bodies, in particular, conspire to prevent Blacks and other ethnic minorities from gaining free and uninhibited access to the polls. This is a process that has been going on since the 1870s after the federal government ceased obstructing the ability of Southern racists and White bigots in general from reimposing de facto racial segregation. It takes place today just as much as it did over a century ago with only methodological variations .

What then really lies behind such claims that, to use the word employed by the Trump camp itself, the 2016 election was “rigged” against them? A rather strange assertion, to say the least, given the fact that Trump is the declared winner and should be the last person to be complaining about the election’s outcome!

Such charges, of course, must be judged in the context of what could have been the real motives for promulgating them in the first place. And the answer is quite apparent: They fit into the rabble-rousing nationalistic populism that is Donald Trump’s political hallmark. Throughout his campaign which won him the presidency, and now in the process by which he intends to consolidate it, Mr. Trump is embarked on a multi-track political strategy: viz, to blend the old-fashioned fascist-style demagoguery, flavoured with implicit White racism, ethnic bigotry, and phobic aversion to foreign immigration, on the one hand, with a veneer of conservative establishment political respectability, on the other.

This is plainly apparent in the pattern of selections thus far being put forward for cabinet and key staff positions. The dilemma Trump faces, of course, is how to reconcile the inherent inconsistencies in his doctrinal scenario: How to hold together the dominantly White working-class support structure that got him elected in the first place, consisting of a saraband of people yearning to restore a gradually fading and ultimately unrestorable ethno-cultural panacea that he implicitly promised them, while simultaneously endeavouring to assemble a core of credibly competent professionals who appear to address America’s real domestic challenges, like economic inequality, Medicare, social security, educational reform, while also reassuring the corporate elite and the privileged classes in general that they will continue to enjoy the special fiscal advantages that enable them to control more than 90 per cent of the country’s wealth.

Also Trump’s appointments are endeavouring to reassure the public that his at times erratic and confusing campaign rhetoric concerning foreign policy will be superseded by more mature and responsible diplomatic and strategic judgements, something he will consistently find difficult because of his own convoluted fiscal machinations.

In his quest to reconcile these apparently contradictory strategies, Trump has been making a mixture of interesting choices. Selecting South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as US’s United Nations representative is one, for example. She is of Indian-American descent; led the movement to have the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds; has in general won recognition as a fair and balanced conservative politician. Another is the nomination of retired Marine General James Mattis for Defense Secretary. Although nicknamed “Mad-Dog Mattis”, the broad consensus is that General Mattis is an extremely able and intellectually impressive military man who would comport himself well in this role.

Then there is Alex Tillerson, Chief Executive of Exxon Mobil Corporation nominated for Secretary of State. However, Tillerson, despite his admitted talents as a world-class business executive, has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin; having negotiated a 2011 energy partnership deal with Russia that Putin said could eventually be worth as much as $500 billion. In 2012, the Kremlin bestowed the country’s Order of Friendship decoration on Tillerson. And these are factors which might affect his ability to win confirmation even by a Republican majority in the US Senate.

Simultaneously, however, we see unfolding a parallel pattern of appointments that are clearly aimed at diminishing and wherever possible nullifying many of the country’s principal social safety nets as well as some of President Barack Obama’s pet policy initiatives. .

Trump has tapped Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the US Environmental Protection Agency who, if confirmed by Congress, would put a climate-change denier in charge of the agency that is supposed to be responsible for reducing air pollution and other causes of climate change.

An array of billionaires sympathetic to Trump’s declared entrepreneurial machinations and reactionary policy propensities have been designated for several key posts in his impending administration, all of whom in one way or another are the diametric opposite of the kind of people he would need to fulfil the promises he made to his White working-class followers to “drain the swamp”. Ironically, some of these key choices have been plucked from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms, the very financial behemoths against which he railed throughout his campaign, and correlatively accused his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton of having sweetheart relations with.

They include his proposed appointment to Treasury (Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive), Transportation (Elaine Chao, wife of the Senate Majority Leader, Mich McConnell), Commerce (William Ross, worth $2.9 billion and opposed to Obama’s trade deals), the CIA (Mike Pompeo, who approves torture for terrorist suspects); Small Business (Linda McMahon: one of Trump’s biggest donors); E.P.A Administration ( Scott Pruitt, close ally of the fossil fuel industry); Health and Human Services (Tom Price, led opposition to Obama’s Affordable Care Act); National Security Advisor (Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, arch reactionary and outspoken opponent of so-called ‘Islamist militancy’); and Chief Strategist (Stephen Bannon, right wing media executive, with known racist biases).

More appointments are on the way that are anticipated to be in the same vein..
What does all this mean?

Film maker Michael Moore says President-elect Donald Trump might not make it to the White House; that “something crazy” could happen, such as the Electoral College rejecting him or the real-estate mogul quitting. “He’s not President of the United States yet. He’s not President until noon on January 20th of 2017,” Moore said during an appearance on NBC’s Late-night-with-Seth-Meyers: “Would you not agree, regardless of which side of the political fence you’re on, this has been the craziest election year? Nothing anyone has predicted has happened… So is it possible, just possible, that in these next six weeks, something else might happen, something crazy, something we’re not expecting?”

Why not indeed!

*Harold A. Gould is a Visiting Professor in the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

UN And Washington DC: A Tale Of Two Inaugurations – OpEd

$
0
0

Next month, leadership will change hands at both the United Nations and the White House and the contrasts could not be any sharper.

The new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, is a Democratic Socialist who has an impeccable record as the former head of the UN’s refugee agency and, before that, a parliamentarian and head of a state (Portugal), deeply committed to international law and the principles of global governance.

The new US president, Donald Trump, is an ultra-nationalist, xenophobic wealthy businessman who has picked a cabinet of billionaires and Wall Street insiders while giving lip service to the working Americans.

The two men clearly stand on the opposite of the political spectrum, in light of Trump’s incessant attacks on “global government” and globalization.

Still, this does not mean that Trump and Guterres have no common grounds and, in fact, Trump may soon find out that in his designs for a new, and more cooperative, Russia policy he has an ally with the new UN chief, who also favors West’s reduction of tensions with Russia. This harmony of positions can be facilitated by Trump’s choice of India-born Niki Haley as the next US ambassador to UN, assuming that Haley will not repeat her immediate predecessor’s outrageous antics. Indeed, Samantha Power has turned out to be a liability for US’s global prestige with her countless spoiled behavior, reminding us of the Marlon Brando movie, The Ugly American.

The problem, however, is that Mr. Trump has no real understanding of world affairs and is perhaps clueless about UN’s contributions to world peace and stability. He definitely needs a quick education on the UN, in order to bracket his and his key advisers’ attacks on UN, which has been echoed by some members of US Congress, not to mention a whole array of other right wing politicians and pundits, some of whom even call for US’s exit from the UN and or stop financing it.

The anti-UN sentiment will likely be moderated somewhat by the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, whose global experience as the head of Exxon Mobil will likely prove crucial in bringing a modicum of equilibrium and rationality to the Trump administration. Hopefully, Trump will change his mind about choosing the ultra-right warmonger John Bolton as the number 2 man at the Department of State, and it is difficult to imagine that Tillerson could actually work with a nut-case like Bolton.

For his part, Mr. Guterres will likely emphasize policy continuity and introduce incremental changes, such as streamlining the bureaucratic decision-making at the UN and making it more efficient, while prioritizing UN’s traditional agenda with respect to peacemaking, peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance, development, climate, gender equality, and so on. The UN is a big organization constantly in a state of financial scarcity, which in turn requires creative methods for alternative UN financing. Trump the businessman can perhaps lend a hand to the UN in this regard, so that the UN can function more independently.

This aside, there are many issues which can pit the US and UN at odds with each other in the coming months and years, such as the Israel-Palestine issue, in light of Trump’s choice of a pro-settlement ambassador to Israel. If Trump chooses to go against the idea of a Palestinian state, then the other UN member states will revolt against it, thus setting a showdown at the UN, which has been a bulwark of pro-Palestinian rights. Weakening the UN and strengthening the Israeli hands in its expansionism may go hand in hand in the ‘new Washington’. There are, of course, a whole set of other issues, such as the Iran nuclear accord, endorsed by the UN Security Council, which might become another flashing point at the UN if Trump opts out of the accord.

In a new era of protectionism and rising nationalism, the global environment for the UN is rapidly moving in the opposite direction of what the UN stands for, which is unfortunate and one certainly hopes that the UN’s new leader will prove effective in cultivating the UN’s global culture of peace.

In a worst case scenario, recalling US’ pretextual war on Iraq, should Trump try to ignite another war in the Middle East or elsewhere, how the UN responds to such a scenario is very important. In the past, the UN heads have bowed before the mighty US’ influence, often making a mockery of their role and responsibility, such as Kofi Annan’s lame objections to the war on Iraq, which he personally benefited through the scandalous food for oil program, and, yet, it is highly unlikely that Guterres will behave that way. Rather, it is almost a sure bet that Guterres will put up a heroic fight against any new US or Western shenanigan to spark the fires of yet another calamitous war. In other words, Trump and Guterres may be destined to openly clash with each other, again in a worst case scenario that, unfortunately, is not too remote from reality.

Shooter Kills Russian Ambassador In Turkey, Says Retaliation For Aleppo

$
0
0

The Russian ambassador to Turkey has died after being shot by a gunman in Ankara, where he was attending a photo exhibition, the Russian Foreign Ministry has confirmed.

Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov was shot five times in the back by a 22-year-old off-duty police officer who worked in the Turkish capital, Ankara’s mayor said.

After the cold-blooded attack, the gunman waved his revolver in the air and could be heard shouting the phrase “Allahu Akbar,” as well as shouting out: “Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria.”

“This is a tragic day in the history of Russian diplomacy. Today, Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrey Karlov died after being shot at during a public event in Ankara,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on Monday evening.

The assault on the Russian ambassador is an “act of terrorism,” she added.

The ambassador, Andrey Karlov, was shot after he was about to deliver a speech on the opening of the exhibition “Russia in the eyes of Turks.”

Photos purportedly showing the perpetrator bearing a firearm are now increasingly circulating on social media. Users are also posting pictures which they say show the Russian ambassador lying on the ground after having been shot.

The perpetrator, who was wearing a suit and a tie, shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (‘God is great’ in Arabic) during the attack, AP reports, citing their own photographer.

The attacker also said several words in Russian, according to the news agency, and damaged several of the photos at the expo.

Turkish NTV broadcaster says that three other people were also injured in the attack on the ambassador.

Germany: Truck Plows Into Berlin Christmas Market, 9 Dead

$
0
0

A truck has plowed into a Christmas market in western Berlin killing nine people and injuring dozens more in a suspected terrorist attack.

The incident happened in one of Berlin’s largest Christmas markets, located in the western Charlottenburg district. It is also close to Berlin’s key shopping mile, Kurfuerstendamm, and a famous tourist site, Memorial Church.

“We can confirm nine fatalities & many injured. A lot of our colleagues are at #Breitscheidplatz to investigate the background,” a message on the official police Twitter account said.

Two people were inside the lorry when it smashed into the market, a police spokesperson told Berlin Morgenpost. They confirmed they are treating the incident as a terrorist attack.

One was captured on the spot, but later died, the official said. Another suspect was discovered nearby and taken to a police station.

Police believe that the surviving suspect was the driver of the lorry.

“It looked like [it was done] on purpose,” a police officer who witnessed the incident told Berliner Zeitung.

According to a spokesperson from Berlin Fire Department, “around 50” were injured.

Police evacuated the Christmas market and sealed it off. A nearby Underground station, Zoologischer Garten, was closed at both the entrance and exit.

Bangladesh War Crimes Trial: Saga Of Rare Courage And Justice – Analysis

$
0
0

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

After 45 years, justice was done on December 5, 2016, for crimes committed during the Liberation War in 1971. 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).

Sulaiman Mollah aka Soleman Moulvi (84) was also charged along with Sardar, but he died of old age complications on October 26, 2016, during the closing arguments of the case.

Four charges were proved beyond doubt against Edris who has been on the run — he was awarded death on two counts, imprisonment for life in one and seven-year jail term in another. 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 earning him death was for killing 20 Hindus 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 them with a bayonet in mid-June 1971, in Shariatpur District. Edris was also awarded seven years’ rigorous imprisonment on a fourth charge, for intimidating around 1,500 people into leaving Bangladesh between March 25 and December 10, 1971.

Thus far, the War Crimes (WC) Trials, which began on March 25, 2010, have indicted 74 leaders. These comprise 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 — these comprise 29 death penalties and 22 life sentences. So far, six of the 29 convicts 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.

Twelve 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 sentence, 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.

Remarkably, 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 Faruque Rahman, Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Bazlul Huda, A.K.M. Mohiuddin Ahmed and Mohiuddin Ahmed — were hanged at Dhaka Central Jail.

Further, Minister for Law Anisul Huq on December 11, 2016, said the government is drafting a law to impound assets of war criminals. The families of war crimes victims and several organisations — including the Ekattarer Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee and Ganajagaran Mancha — which are demanding the death penalty for all war criminals, have also been demanding confiscation of war criminals’ properties.

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 some 3,000 local Muslim zealots, armed with sticks and sharp weapons, vandalised 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 organised 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 Crimes 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 War Crimes Trials are the unfinished agenda of the Liberation War, and need to be sustained, despite efforts of anti-liberation forces and their sympathisers in the diaspora and international community to disrupt the process.

*S. Binodkumar Singh is a Research Associate at the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in


Obama Pardons 78 And Grants 153 Commutations

$
0
0

US President Barack Obama on Monday pardoned 78 people, and commuted the sentences of 153 others.

The White House noted that this is the most individual acts of clemency granted in a single day by any president in the nation’s history. With today’s 153 commutations, Obama has now commuted the sentences of 1,176 individuals, including 395 life sentences.

President also granted pardons to 78 individuals, bringing his total number of pardons to 148.

“Today’s acts of clemency — and the mercy the President has shown his 1,324 clemency recipients — exemplify his belief that America is a nation of second chances,” the White House said.

Putin Says Slaying Of Ambassador Seeks To Derail Syrian Peace Process

$
0
0

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said Monday’s assassination of Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov, “is undeniably a provocation aimed at derailing the normalization of Russian-Turkish relations and the peace process in Syria, which is actively promoted by Russia, Turkey, Iran and other countries interested in the settlement of the internal conflict in Syria.”

As reported, Karlov died after being shot by a gunman in Ankara, where he was attending a photo exhibition. The Russian Ambassador was shot five times in the back by a 22-year-old off-duty police officer who worked in the Turkish capital, Ankara’s mayor said. It is reported that after the cattack, the gunman waved his revolver in the air and could be heard shouting the phrase “Allahu Akbar,” as well as shouting, “Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria.”

“There can be only one response – stepping up the fight against terrorism – which the criminals will find out firsthand,” Putin said in a meeting with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin and Director of the Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov.

According to Putin, Russia’s Investigative Committee has already opened a case on the murder, and has been tasked with forming a working group which will promptly leave for Ankara to take part in the investigation of this crime together with Turkish partners.

“This was just agreed during a telephone conversation with the President of Turkey. We must find out who directed the killer’s hand,” Putin said, adding that, “Security must be tightened at Turkish diplomatic missions in Russia, the embassy, and other missions, and the Turkish side should provide assurances on security at Russian diplomatic offices in accordance with Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.”

Putin said that he has requested the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to award Karlov a state decoration posthumously and to make proposals on how best to honour his memory.

In a statement, the United States’ NSC spokesperson Ned Price said, “This heinous attack on a member of the diplomatic corps is unacceptable, and we stand united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms.”

Elections Have Left Macedonia Dangerously Adrift – OpEd

$
0
0

By Erwan Fouere*

The early elections on December 11 were supposed to signal a return to the rule of law and democratic standards in Macedonia. Instead they have plunged the country into an even worse crisis, with demonstrations organised by the ruling VMRO-DPMNE party against the State Electoral Commission, SEC, even before it delivered its rulings on complaints submitted by the opposition regarding alleged election irregularities.

In such a period of heightened tension, an appeal for calm and restraint from the government and from the political leadership might have been expected.

Instead, Nikola Gruevski, the leader of VMRO DPMNE, has thrown down the gauntlet to both state institutions and to the international community. At a rally in front of the SEC building on Saturday evening, he announced that the party would neither recognize the findings of the SEC nor accept any recounting of votes in any circumstance.

[The SEC has accepted one of the opposition’s 16 complaints and called for a recount in one polling station in the town of Gostivar.]

The former Prime Minister also rejected what he called interference by foreign ambassadors and announced that his party would demand that controls be placed on activities of civil society organisations.

This threat came after several days of demonstrations against the SEC organised by the ruling party in which senior party officials could be seen exhorting the crowds to “defend the country”, even though the SEC was merely fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities in the electoral process.

This intimidation of a state body and incitement to violence was epitomised by the behaviour of the President of the Commission for Relations with Religious Communities, who warned of a coming “Night of the long knives” – recalling the Nazi purges in Germany in 1934.

The only appeal for calm came from the leader of the main opposition Social Democratic Union, SDSM, who urged his supporters not to give in to provocation. It was a statesmanlike approach from the leader of a party that has been subjected to a constant barrage of provocations and intimidation.

In addition to the harassment of civil society organisations, ruling party followers have even using social media to spread threats to known opponents of the regime. Meanwhile the Prime Minister and the President have remained silent and have not been seen since the elections, giving the impression of a country adrift with no government in place.

The results of the elections themselves represent a clear defeat for the outgoing coalition between VMRO-DPMNE and the ethnic Albanian Democratic Union for Integration, DUI. Together they lost over 20 seats, cutting their potential majority in parliament to one seat, if the current distribution of seats announced before the opposition’s complaints were submitted is maintained.

The unusually large turnout and the substantial gains made by the SDSM with support from ethnic Albanian voters as well as the emergence of new parties in the Albanian community signal a desire for change that crosses the traditional ethnic divide.

To quote from the OSCE/ODIHR election observation preliminary report, the electoral process reflected “public mistrust in institutions and the political establishment, and allegations of voter coercion”.

Indeed, had it not been for the “allegations of voter intimidation, widespread pressure on civil servants, vote buying, coercion, and misuse of administrative resources”, which the OSCE/ODIHR report said persisted throughout the campaign, the gains made by the opposition parties would surely have been greater.

The campaign saw a dangerous resurgence of nationalist sentiments from the ruling party, which has added to ethnic tensions. The party also had foreign ministers from two EU member states attending and publicly expressing their support for it – a point Gruevski seemingly forgot when he criticised the so-called “interference” by foreign diplomats.

Where this leaves a country battered by a succession of crises since 2012 is unclear.

A return of the outgoing VCMRO DPMNE-DUI coalition would only further deepen Macedonia’s crisis, encouraging the ruling party to tighten its “state capture”, to use the words of the November European Commission report. It would also reduce the chances of any progress in addressing the “urgent” reforms that have been on the table of the government for almost two years.

In any case, having campaigned against the extension of the mandate of the Special Prosecutor, appointed as part of the EU-led Przino Agreement to investigate the wiretapping scandal, the ruling party has surely disqualified itself from being in the next government.

The DUI party, which was part of the outgoing coalition, has yet to give any indications as to its intentions. However, even if it decides not to return to the coalition, the ruling party will most likely do everything possible to cling to power, even if this means trampling on the legitimate authority and institutions of the state.

This stonewalling could lead to a scenario where the only alternative is another election to coincide with the local elections scheduled for next spring. This would further drain the resources and energy of an already exhausted country.

The interests of Macedonia – and a chance to exit the crisis – would be best served if the main opposition parties and all the other parties who voted for change were to join forces in a coalition that would guarantee a return to the rule of law and to democratic principles.

Its priority would be implementation of the stalled “Urgent Reforms”, and restoring trust in the institutions.

By including respected independent personalities in its government, it would signal a desire to replace the partisan politics of the past ten years with a more inclusive broad coalition in which confrontation was replaced by dialogue and consensus-building.

Support for the work of the Special Prosecutor, SJO, would also be a priority. And to ensure due process of its investigations, this support would have to be accompanied by the establishment of a special criminal chamber with judges independent from the ruling party, which as we have seen, controls most of the judiciary.

Come what may, the Special Prosecutor represents the only hope for a return to the rule of law.

Probably the most difficult task for this incoming coalition will be to repair the damage to society created by the ruling VMRO-DPMNE party.

Restoring confidence in the functioning of state institutions and replacing the politics of fear and intimidation with those of hope and faith in the future is the only way to overcome the deep polarisation in society.

A more inclusive and more caring political leadership will ensure that the wounds of the past years have a chance to heal and allow the hitherto suppressed potential of the country to be fully realised.

The people of Macedonia, especially the younger generation, deserve a chance for new beginnings as we enter a new year. They have a right to this rebirth and to live again without fear.

*Erwan Fouéré is a fellow of the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels and a former EU special representative to Macedonia.

The opinions expressed in the comments section are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.

What Are Motives Behind Alleging Russia Of Hacking US Election? – OpEd

$
0
0

In one of my recent articles, I stated that elections are engineered in third world countries, but in the US elections are engineered in an organized manner. After the victory of Donald Trump a debate has started in the US that Russia has hacked the election.

Accepting all my inadequacies, the following points come to my mind. I request my readers, especially the think tanks from the United States and those in power in Russia to help the world in understanding the purpose behind this propaganda.

My first question is, has Russia attained power to rig the elections of a country that has defeated the USSR in Afghanistan, which led to disintegration of the then second largest super power?

My second question, what is the motive behind this propaganda?

My third question, what are the motives behind maligning Russia or CIA and NSA?

My fourth question, why the movement to attempt to deny entry of Donald Trump in the White House?

My fifth question, who is the bigger war monger, Donald Trump, or the mighty CIA, NSA and Pentagon?

My sixth question, is the media in the US also subservient to military might?

As I have accepted earlier my inadequacies, kindly have some patience to read my replies also.

My explanation to the first question is that there is a clear motive behind accusing Russia, and the killing two birds with the same stone. While the effort is aimed at maligning Russia, it is also exposing the failures of the CIA and the NSA. I will abstain from raising a finger at Russia, but tend to agree with those who have been saying that CIA/NSA and Pentagon have been acting on false information, the worst being the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The reply to my second question may sound outrageous, but I could not resist from saying it. Despite all the propaganda against Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton lost the election. This is a defeat of those who could be termed non-state actors. Maybe they believe that establishing a link between Donald Trump and Russia could stop his entry into the White House.

The reply to the third question is that lately Russia has defeated the US on various fronts, specifically in Syria. This has happened despite the best efforts and tall claims of the CIA and the NSA. Those believing in maintaining the status quo are not ready to accept their defeat. However, while accusing Russia they forget that they are also accepting failure of their intelligence agencies.

In my view, they are accepting the supremacy of Russia to seek more funds for the CIA and the NSA for their capacity building to open new war fronts around the globe, such as the next front in the South China Sea.

The possible explanation of the fourth question is the apprehension that Donald Trump’s cordial relationship with Russia may lead to a withdrawal of support for ISIS and the closing of the front in Syria. This is being taken as a victory of Iran.

Ironically, US military might, intelligence and ‘embedded journalists’, who have been counting the days of Syrian President are not ready to accept their defeat.

To find a reply to the fifth question readers should read my latest article, US War Mania. Over the years I have been saying that the US is the biggest arms supplier and to increase the sale of arms it has to create new rebel groups, provide them funds and training to sell arms to the incumbent governments of these countries.

Contrary to the impression created by the dishonest western media, I have a feeling that Donald Trump wishes to focus more on domestic issues, spend more funds on the creation and improvisation of infrastructure for the benefit of masses, rather than spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on proxy wars. This policy of Donald Trump is not approved by war mongers and owners of the armament factories of the US.

The lesson of the story is that the US citizens are so engrossed in ‘other’ activities that they even don’t have time to question why taxpayers’ money is being spent on wars ,rather than on millions of US citizens still living below the poverty line. Groups that have a vested interest have been preaching a ‘change of regime’ in countries around the world must also do the same at home.

Libya: Pentagon Says Sirte Liberated From Islamic State

$
0
0

By Terri Moon Cronk

A campaign by the Government of National Accord in Libya has liberated the city of Sirte, where the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant had sought to establish a stronghold in North Africa, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said today.

“This was a tough fight, and we congratulate the GNA-aligned forces for their courage and determination,” Cook told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, “and we are proud to have supported this campaign to eliminate ISIL’s hold of the only city it has controlled outside Iraq and Syria.”

“U.S. Africa Command carried out this mission with particular skill, the press secretary said, limiting the risk of civilian casualties while conducting airstrikes in Sirte. The United States will continue to keep an eye on the remnants of ISIL in Libya and will remain prepared to assist the GNA as appropriate, he added.

ISIL Degradation Continues

In Iraq, Iraqi security forces continue to degrade ISIL forces in Mosul, where the Iraqi forces have cleared about 20 percent of the city, Cook said. During his recently concluded around-the-globe trip in which he met and thanked U.S. service members for their service, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was also able to meet with Iraqi forces and Kurdish peshmerga fighters conducting this campaign and thanked them personally for their courage and determination in a challenging fight in dense, urban terrain, he added.

The Syrian Democratic Forces over the weekend also accomplished a significant milestone in the drive to isolate and eventually liberate Raqqa, ISIL’s self-proclaimed capital in Syria, Cook said.

“SDF forces driving south have reached the Euphrates River northwest of Raqqa, which will help to isolate ISIL forces on that side of the river,” he told reporters. “Importantly, as they continue this isolation of Raqqa, the SDF is continuing to attract Arab fighters for future operations against ISIL.”

Strike in Afghanistan Kills al-Qaida Leaders

Turning to counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, Cook said an Oct. 23 U.S. precision airstrike near Kunar killed three senior al-Qaida leaders.

The Defense Department had previously announced that the strike killed Faruq al-Qatani, al-Qaida’s emir for eastern Afghanistan, Cook said. Officials now have determined the same strike also killed Bilal al-Utabyi, Qatani’s deputy, as well as Abd al-Wahid al-Junabi, a senior al-Qaida explosives expert, the press secretary told reporters.

“The deaths of these three senior al-Qaida leaders will significantly disrupt the group’s ability to threaten the United States, our interests and our allies and highlights our continuing commitment to the counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan,” he said. “This strike is further evidence that those who seek to do us harm are not beyond our reach.”

Cook began his briefing by telling reporters the Defense Department condemns the shooting of a Russian ambassador in Turkey, an event that was unfolding as the briefing began.

“We are aware of the situation in Turkey and the shooting of the Russian ambassador, and we condemn this act of violence,” the press secretary said. “Our thoughts are with the victims and their families.”

Viewing all 73722 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images