By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On December 22, 2016, Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadres shot dead one person, identified as G. Appa Rao, at Munuguluwalsa village under the Pottangi Police limits in the Koraput District of Odisha. Appa Rao was the husband of the Naib Sarpanch (deputy head of the Panchayat, the village level local-self government institution) of Talagoluru. The Maoists also set ablaze two tractors and one van belonging to Apparao before leaving the spot.

Earlier, on December 15, 2016, former top Maoist leader T. Anil Kumar aka Chandu, who was the head of the ‘intelligence wing’ of the ‘Koraput – Srikakulam Special Zonal Committee (KSSZC)’ and was allegedly involved in more than 100 cases, including killing alleged ‘police informers’, was found dead at Uparakanti Hill under the Semiliguda Block of Koraput District. Chandu belonged to Chirala town and was arrested in Talapaniki village under the Narayanpatna Block of Koraput District in February, 2014. He was later granted conditional bail and eventually ‘rehabilitated’ in Koraput, attracting the Maoists’ ire.

On November 18, 2016, Maoists killed a contractor-supervisor, identified as Jayaram Khila, slitting his throat at Bhitarakota village under Patangi Police limits in Koraput District.

According to partial data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) database, at least 11 persons, including eight civilians, two Security Force (SF) personnel and one Maoist, have been reported killed in Left Wing Extremism (LWE)/Maoist-linked incidents in Koraput District during the current year (data till December 25, 2016). During the corresponding period of 2015, Koraput had recorded just one such fatality, a SF trooper. There were no fatalities thereafter in 2015.

Since the beginning of 2016, the Maoists have killed at least eight civilians in Koraput District, which is the highest in comparison to other LWE/Maoist-affected Districts of the State. Kandhamal followed, with six civilian fatalities; Malkangiri with five; Kalahandi, three; and one each in Nuapada and Rayagada. The increase in civilian fatalities in Koraput, gives clear cause for concern. Nevertheless, the trend suggests that the Maoists are exercising extreme caution to avoid a confrontation with SFs, while the quiet elimination of civilian opposition continues.

Koraput District appears to experience a recurring cycle in annual fatalities. While, the highest number, 43, was recorded in 2010, not a single fatality was registered in 2006 and 2007. The District had just one fatality (a lone SF trooper) in 2015, the current year has seen a surge in violence, with 11 dead, including eight civilians, two SF personnel and one Maoist, thus far.

With a total area of about 8,807 square kilometres, Koraput is covered by forests, waterfalls, springs and terraced valleys. It also contains the largest mountains of Odisha, Deomali and Chandragiri. The forest cover in the District is 1879.53 square kilometres, i.e., about 21.33 per cent of the total area. The District is situated to the south of the State. On its extreme north, Koraput is bounded by Kalahandi; to the Northwest by Nabarangpur; to the Northeast by Rayagada District; and on the south by the Malkangiri District, all of Odisha. On the west of Koraput lies the Bastar District of Chhattisgarh; and on its east and southeast, the Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Vishakhapatnam Districts of Andhra Pradesh. Its geographical proximity with Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, two crucial Maoist-affected States, have made Koraput a major transit route for the rebels to cross over from one State to the other. Significantly, Koraput forms part of the Dandakaranya region, the nerve centre of the Maoist rebellion.

Koraput is full of paradoxes. On the one hand it presents a picture of scenic beauty with rolling mountains, tumbling rivers, beautiful valleys and a pleasant climate; and on the other hand, there is the abject poverty of its tribal population, which has hardly been touched by modernity. Koraput’s majority tribal and scheduled caste population, as well as widespread under-development, poverty, malnutrition and illiteracy, makes it one of the most backward Districts of India. Predictably, Koraput was ranked towards the bottom; 541st, among the 599 Districts across India, surveyed by the US-India Policy Institute (USIPI) and the Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy (CRDDP), New Delhi. The report of the survey, which took composite development — measured in terms of economic development and the indices of health, education and material well-being – into consideration, was released on January 29, 2015.

Apart from killing civilians, the Maoists have also orchestrated violence to impede developmental works in the District. On November 18, 2016, for instance, around 50 Maoists set fire to two Hiwa trucks, a Hitachi machine, a tractor and a tipper at a road construction site. The Maoists oppose the construction of the road to Bhitarakota village and also held a meeting in the presence of around 200 villagers in which the latter are also reported to have opposed the road work. The Maoists also abducted ten workers at the site before fleeing the spot. However, they released the workers after taking away their mobile phones, data machines and documents from them.

Further, on October 1, 2016, Gajarla Ravi aka Uday, ‘secretary’ of the Maoists’ Malkangiri-Koraput-Vishaka Border Division Committee (MKVDC), had addressed a meeting at Jantri village in the Kalimela tehsil (revenue unit) of Malkangiri District, where he reportedly appealed to the villagers to boycott the forthcoming Odisha panchayat elections in 2017, and urged them to protest against bauxite mining in Koraput District. The meeting was attended by around 1,000 to 1,500 villagers from Jodamba, Janbai, Paparmetla and Panasput of the Malkangiri District and Bodapada of Koraput District, both in Odisha; and Rollagedda of the East Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh.

Significantly, on February 17, 2016, the then Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Director General (DG), Prakash Mishra had claimed that the Maoist menace was returning to Odisha and Telangana, after receding for some time, with the overall situation in LWE-affected States remaining “fluid”. Mishra noted that, while LWE activity in Odisha had by-and-large cleared up, it was “coming back” to the Narayanpatna area of Koraput District.

In the meantime, SF personnel have carried out at least seven combing operations in the District. In one recent operation Special Operations Group (SOG) and District Voluntary Force (DVF) personnel destroyed a CPI-Maoist camp in the forested area between Dumuriguda-Panasput-Kandra in Hatibari panchayat under the Padwa Police limits of Nandapur Block in Koraput District, on September 18, 2016, and seized two walkie-talkie sets, huge quantities of explosives and detonators, medicines and Maoist literature. The rebels belonged to the Koraput Division of the Maoists’ Andhra-Odisha Special Zonal Committee (AOBSZC). Further, according to media reports, combing operations by SFs were intensified in the bordering villages of Machkund, Ankedeli, Nandapur, Narayanpatna and Laxmipur in Koraput District and several check posts were erected to curb the infiltration of Maoists from the neighbouring Malkangiri District and Andhra Pradesh.

To boost combing operations, the Central Forces are largely deployed in Koraput District, as well as in Rayagada, Malkangiri, Kalahandi, Keonjhar, Mayurbhanj, Nuapada and Kandhamal. Currently, the Centre has deployed a total of 17 battalions of Central Armed Police Forces in the State – eight battalions each of the CRPF and Border Security Force (BSF) and one battalion of the Commando Battalion for Resolute Action (CoBRA), a specialized unit of the CRPF.

On September 18, 2016, State Director General of Police (DGP) K.B. Singh reiterated that LWEs were trying to regroup in Odisha: “We still face a challenge from ultras even though situation has improved a lot. Recent seizure of explosives from their hideouts in different Districts indicates the Red rebels are trying to spread their activities again.” Clearly the Maoist threat in the State persists, and is reflected disproportionately in Koraput, since it serves as a major Maoist transit route, within a wider region where there is a significant concentration of the rebels’ residual capacities.

* Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Because Roman Catholics in Russia have so often found themselves at odds with the state, they are, “regardless of cultural ‘roots’ often Siberians by place of residence.” Novosibirsk is the host of the most important Russian Catholic media, and the current nuncio in Moscow wrote his dissertation on “The Catholics of Siberia.”

That history and geography profoundly affects not only the Russian Catholic community’s commitment to remembering past oppression, Elena Berdnikova writes in “Novaya gazeta;” it also plays a significant role in defining Siberian regional identity as well (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2016/12/24/71015-pamyatlivye-lyudi).

Anyone who travels along “the Catholic routes” in Russia “sooner or later comes to a prison for precisely in it are preserved the navigation maps of Russian Catholics, wave after wave for 15 years, they have been sent into places of unfreedom because they have struggled ‘for freedom.’”

Now, priests often say mass where once prisoners were kept in the GULAG. There are still “few priests, as their flocks are spread across a territory equal in size to Europe,” Berdnikova says. One such priest now, Father Lescek Hrichuk who was born and trained in Poland now serves in several churches and fills his homilies with Polish jokes.

Often he and his fellow priests are the first official ones since the 1930s – there were underground Catholic communities in the interim but no priests – and they must deal with the task of rebuilding the churches and reforming the flocks that had been decimated by Soviet anti-religious policies.

Under Stalin, the Roman Catholics of the USSR suffered horribly. They included Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and Austrians; but it is perhaps significant they were all listed by the NKVD as “’aliens’” and almost all were sentenced according to paragraphs six, nine and eleven of the notorious Article 58.

The Catholic church in Kurgan is located now in an apartment two steps away from the place where in 918 was erected a monument “For the Freedom of the Czech Republic.” Now, there is another monument there to the victims of political repression. It was put up in the early 1990s; but, Berdnikova says, shifts in Russian attitudes mean the Catholics couldn’t do so now.

In the Catholic churches, she continues, there are eternal discussions about the past and about what believers have gone through. In this, the Catholics are more constant than are many Russian Orthodox. “Memory can preserve the Catholics,” Bernikova writes; and they have reasons for thinking so.

“In Russia,” she continues, “East Europeans and especially Poles are considered vindictive complainers” who do nothing but talk about how they have suffered at the hands of Russia or the USSR. “But they have their own history and their own memory,” and that history and memory preserves them.

“The Catholic hierarchy loves to repeat that it is not building any ‘ethnic church’ in Russia; that the church is open to all. And in Siberia [today], a large segment of the Catholics consists of ethnic Russians.” But the past suffering of non-Russian Catholics informs their feelings as well.

The Catholics remember, Berdnikova says, because “if the church doesn’t remember its martyrs, who will?”

By Adarsh Vijay*

Russia is all set to rebuild its relations with Pakistan, a move that could be a game-changer for both Pakistan and South Asia. Given the dynamic strategic parameters in South Asia and a policy transition that might overcome the long drawn US-Russia Cold War rivalry that had also disconnected Russia from Pakistan, Moscow is now busy resetting the balance of power in South Asia. What induces this new attitude? Does the move lead to derail the Russian proximity with India? Is Moscow making a wrong choice?

Pakistan: Russia’s Emerging Imperative

The Russian experiment with Pakistan is purely a product of Moscow’s emerging strategic calculus. Moscow’s move could also be read as a sign of proscribing the growing rapprochement between Washington and New Delhi. Through this move, Kremlin seems to be signaling to India to reconsider its increasing camaraderie with the US and to re-tilt relations in Russia’s favour.

Moscow’s refusal to call off its first-ever bilateral military exercise with Pakistan on India’s request, following the terrorist attack on the military base in Uri in September 2016, revealed the change in Moscow’s psyche. In another instance of this change, at the Heart of Asia conference held in Amritsar, India, on 3 and 4 December 2016, the Russian Envoy disapproved of branding Pakistan as a “terrorism-sponsoring state.” Similarly at the October 2016 BRICS Summit in Goa, India, Russian President Vladimir Putin made no mention of Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism which India had specifically emphasised upon at the meeting.

However, Moscow’s policy is also indicative of the vitality it associates to Islamabad’s cooperation in the efforts to stabilise Afghanistan. Kabul’s stability is an add-on to peace in Central Asia. Russia’s hunt for sprawling markets in the region to sell Russian-manufactured goods is threatened by the political instability and the dangerous security situation in Afghanistan. While Pakistan will play an indispensable role in the Afghan peace process, Russia can also take Pakistan’s help to leverage its commercial linkages in the region in the long run.

Is Moscow at Cross-purposes with New Delhi?

Russia is wise enough not to keep India in abeyance. Yet, the rapprochement between Moscow and Islamabad will create apprehensions for New Delhi. However, Russia remains India’s largest arms supplier and so long as this relationship thrives, Russo-Indian ties might still remain strong. The recently concluded Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) between Washington and New Delhi has been a wake-up call for Moscow. The agreement gives the US access to some of India’s military facilities, including air and sea port establishments, for refueling and replenishment to meet logistical needs. It similarly gives the Indian military access to some US military facilities for the same purpose. To Kremlin, the LEMOA with India reflects the US’ intentions for containing both Russia and China in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

In a hypothetical scenario in which India moves into the American sphere of influence and distances itself from Russia, it would be critical for Moscow to ensure a strong foothold in the IOR. The new template has invoked a sense of caution for New Delhi. Moscow is clear about the fact that the Russian proximity with Pakistan would serve an alarm for India. This new strategic layout might synergise the traditional amity between India and Russia, which obviously realigns US-India relations.

Pakistan: The Emerging Balancer?

Pakistan’s leverage in South Asia grows through its “all-weather friendship” with China and ties with the US, and now with the Russian rapprochement. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has offered Pakistan a strong economic and political fall-back in the event of deteriorating relations with the US.

Russia is likely to empower Pakistan with a higher degree of strategic autonomy in its relations than the US does. Apart from the recent joint military exercises, Islamabad had also been working on finalising the procurement of Su-35 aircrafts from Moscow. Interestingly, a Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation statement denied any negotiations in this direction. In spite of this setback, Islamabad managed to clinch the deal for the delivery of four Mi-35 attack helicopters from Moscow. Although Russia has dismissed claims of secret negotiations with Pakistan for joining the CPEC, Russia would still be interested in accessing the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, given that Russia is mostly surrounded by cold waters. Kremlin’s interest in linking the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) project with the Chinese Silk Road was misinterpreted as Russia’s claim to be part of the CPEC. It is to be seen whether the ‘rumours’ about the Russian interest and stakes in the economic corridor would indeed materialise.

The complex setting in which South Asia operates makes this evolving Russia-Pakistan relationship an unpredictable one. The US President-elect, Donald Trump, has already hinted at a pro-Russian attitude and the new US administration might even soften Moscow’s perception of the US-India relations. Nonetheless, it is perhaps premature to analyse the exact nature of the emerging Russian endeavours in Pakistan and their repercussions. Even then, it would only be a relief for New Delhi if Islamabad does not indeed substitute it as Moscow’s South Asian friend.

* Adarsh Vijay
Postgraduate Student, Madras Christian College, Chennai

At the international level, any progress toward ensuring the protection of religious freedom and reducing discrimination against and persecution of religious minorities has been hampered by the failure of the United Nations.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

Although Christians have lived in the Middle East – the birthplace of Christianity – for nearly two thousand years, as a result of years of persecution and discrimination, especially in the past 15 years, they now constitute no more than 3-4% of the region’s population, down from 20% a century ago. Christians are not the only minority being discriminated against in this region, but their plight is more visible in many places, beyond what has been experienced by Yazidis, Kurds, Druze, and others. Unfortunately, given the turmoil in the Middle East and the rise of Islamic extremism, with few exceptions Christians and other minorities may no longer be able to live in harmony with their largely Muslim neighbors.

There are several factors contributing to the persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East. Although sectarian conflicts in the region are not new, the 2003 Iraq War and the Arab Spring unleashed a new torrent of violence between Sunnis and Shias and against other religious minorities.

The rise of Islamic extremism has been a singular driving force in the plight of religious minorities, fueling a growing desire to resort to religion as a palliative. The resurfacing of religious division vis-à-vis the Sunni-Shia conflict, and between different Sunni sects, is creating a societal mindset that posits other religious groups as ‘the enemy.’ Groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS exploit this intolerance of religious and inter-religious out-groups, with the latter taking such fanaticism to new and barbaric heights.

In addition, the wanton persecution of religious minorities is compounded by the threat of radicalization, which threatens social cohesion and combines religious doctrine with fanatical violence. As Blaise Pascal aptly put it, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

The prevailing frustration, pain, and agony in the region as a result of socio-economic despondency adds further impetus to the spike in discrimination—when governments fail to step in and mitigate the situation, there is a tendency to find a ‘sacrificial lamb’ to blame one’s ills on.

The fact that there is rampant unemployment, limited opportunities for higher education, and that tens of millions of Muslims live in poverty all fosters a sense of resentment against other minorities.

Arab nationalism is another major factor that was reinvigorated in the wake of Arab Spring, and as a result, discrimination against Christians was sharpened in certain countries, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The growing influence of Islam into the state framework created cleavages between religious minority groups and the majority.

The prevalence of blasphemy laws throughout the region add another complex layer to religious discrimination. These laws, which are frequently abused to settle personal scores, often carry with them a mandatory death sentence. Allegations of blasphemy are often presented with no evidence, because to reproduce the evidence would be to reproduce the blasphemy.

Finally, a widely-held perception in the Middle East today is that many of the region’s socioeconomic problems are attributable to the legacy of the post-World War I and II colonial eras and the exploitive regimes of those times. Though many of the newly independent states immediately turned to autocratic rule, the pre-existing state structures were largely kept in place to the relief of religious minorities.

The Arab Spring, though, put this political order to the test—the demand for democratization made many religious minorities uneasy, worried that the legal protections carried over from the Ottoman era would fall to the wayside.

There are several remedies and countermeasures that must be taken to mitigate religious discrimination. To begin with, a renewed and concerted push is necessary at the political level, led by the world’s major powers to end many of the raging regional conflicts. Needless to say, this is easier said than done, but then regardless of how extremely intractable many of these conflicts are, no one should expect that persecution of minorities would be eliminated or be appreciably minimized unless these conflicts come to an end.

Ending regional conflicts, including a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would substantially reduce tensions in much of the region and bring Israel closer to the Sunni Arab world, while depriving extremist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah of their raison d’etre.

A solution to the Syrian conflict would stabilize what is left of the fractious nation and could help improve the status of the remaining Christian community in particular, which has seen many of its holy sites defaced or completely destroyed at the behest of radical Islamist militias such as ISIS.

The Sunni-Shiite conflict, spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively, is another conflict that feeds into the frenzy of extremism and must also be mitigated, even though it may take years if not decades.

Preventive diplomacy is critically important any time there is a sign that acts of persecution might take place, or there appears to be a gradual emergence of an environment that could lead to persecution—measures taken by the West, and particularly the United States, in a timely fashion would prevent such developments from occurring.

Furthermore, in responding quickly to atrocities against religious minorities, outside powers need to interject themselves more forcefully before conflicts spiral out of control. There is evidence that suggests timely intervention in Syria, however limited in scope, can prevent further calamities against religious minorities.

When ISIS was attacking the Yazidis in Iraq with genocidal intent, the US intervened and saved tens of thousands of Yazidis who were trapped on Mount Sinjar, under threat of extermination by the extremist Islamist group. Similarly, the destruction of the predominantly Kurdish city of Kobani in Syria was prevented when the US helped local Kurdish forces repel ISIS and take back the town.

Significant funding is needed for religious programming so that citizens of a given country can develop legal practices and cultural tools which offer training and instruction in religious tolerance. In order to address these issues, federal agencies including USAID need to enforce their mandates, as do nonprofits whose mission is to promote religious freedom initiatives.

When these states modify their existing practices, they can be rewarded financially or otherwise depending on the special need of a given country — but tangible results need to be seen before any incentives are granted.

To drive the point home, violators need to fully understand that their transgressions will have consequences. With its tremendous global influence, the United States and the EU can go as far as leveraging international trade or other political deals with a demand of ending violations against religious minorities.

Violators can be punished through sanctions – restricting travel of senior officials, limiting trade, etc.—which could give violating countries incentives to stop discriminatory practices. Approaches to addressing violations against religious freedom, however, cannot be generalized. Each country is different, and the same measures cannot be applied across the board.

We cannot underestimate the importance of education in promoting and fostering religious tolerance and inter-religious dialogue. Modifying textbooks and learning about religions other than one’s own can be an invaluable experience, if it is approached without belittling, disparaging, or dismissing views that are different from the ones we happen to hold.

Positive exposure to other religions can deepen the understanding and appreciation we have of our own faith. As Gandhi aptly observed, “It is the duty of every cultured man or woman to read sympathetically the scriptures of the world. If we are to respect others’ religions as we would have them respect our own, a friendly study of the world’s religions is a sacred duty.”

There are innumerable instances where a country, due to a preexisting alliance or for the sake of self-interest, will not admonish a partner nation for its violations against religious freedom. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq are on top of the list in discriminating against Christians, but one does not hear the United States raising this question publicly due to political considerations.

If the United States seeks to make its objections clear to allied nations, it must open a quiet dialogue and pressure them to correct their records on religious freedom.

At the international level, any progress toward ensuring the protection of religious freedom and reducing discrimination against and persecution of religious minorities has been hampered by the failure of the United Nations.

The UN Security Council is overly politicized, and a resolution to stop the persecution of minorities is rarely passed; even then, there is no enforcement mechanism over which all Security Council members agree upon. The UN General Assembly is less effective, as any resolution passed is non-binding and largely ignored by its own members.

The strategies that have been enumerated for addressing religious persecution of minorities in the Middle East do not constitute a silver bullet that will bring a halt to discrimination and abuse. It is a tragedy for the world when any group of persons – whether they be Christians, Muslims, Yazidis, or Druze – are denied their human dignity and the basic human freedom to believe and worship as they please.

The freedom of religion and the dignity of each and every individual will be fully restored when those who now are consumed with hatred for the other, recall and take to heart the words of Matthew 25:40: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

*Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TransConflict.

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera*

“No foreign policy – no matter how ingenious – has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none.” — Henry A Kissinger

7 December this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Pearl Harbour attack – a reminder of a history of imperialism and fascism, and how the world order moved toward bipolarity with the onset of the Cold War. Now, China and many other countries, some with nuclear weapons capabilities, are emerging as the new powers in a multipolar world. According to Professor Amitav Acharya of the School of International Service, American University, “a multi-polar world includes many powerful individual groups apart from governments.” The US however remains a superpower. Its foreign policy could undergo dramatic adjustments with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. His recent phone call to the Taiwanese leader Tsai Ing-wen – not a standard practice since 1979 – has hinted at this change.

In a threatened neo-liberal world order, Sri Lanka should craft its foreign policy to suit the international environment of the day. Sri Lanka was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). During the period when smaller nations had to commit allegiance to either the US or the Soviet Union, Sri Lanka’s first women Prime Minister, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, showed courageous leadership to the world, and her foreign policy was guided by a combination of interests, values and power.

Today too, President Sirisena’s government has balanced the country’s relations with the west and the east. The Asia-centric foreign policy spelled out by the president clearly prioritises relations with Asia while balancing the rest. Sri Lanka has a policy of equidistance with global powers including India, China and the US. While gaining support from foreign governments, the Sri Lankan government should also reach out to the three million-strong Sri Lankan diaspora, which includes Sinhalese, Tamils and other ethnic groups who live overseas.

The term ‘lobby’ in this case implies a loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to achieve a positive outcome for their nation of birth. A lobby might not be a unified movement with a central leadership, and individuals within the coalition might also disagree on certain issues. Certain sections of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora are still engaged in lobbying for a separate homeland, ‘Eelam’. A diaspora has the ability to maneouvre the nation’s policy so that it advances their interests. Voting for candidates, writing and commenting, making financial contributions and supporting individuals who could contribute to achieve their goals are among the diasporas’ key functionalities.

Sri Lanka’s diaspora is pivotal for three reasons. First, a Sri Lankan diaspora that is re-aligned with the county helps to project the country’s positive image. What is therefore required is a re-alignment strategy that opens strong communication channels for whoever is disconnected from Sri Lanka for various reasons. Second, the diaspora could act as a powerful lobby, hitherto an untapped asset. Third, the diaspora could contribute to economic prosperity if Sri Lanka opens its doors to expatriates with professional expertise to join the ailing government enterprises and assist other sectors of the economy and to bring investments.

To benefit from the support and strength of the diaspora, Sri Lanka can learn a lot from Israel. The Israeli diaspora is a much larger and powerful group that receives huge donations and assistance from the US. This diaspora also acts as a lobby group and exerts influence on US foreign policy. The Chicago School scholar, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen M Walt of Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School, have brilliantly explained this in their book, ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’: “Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.”

The overseas Indian diaspora is yet another example of a group that contributes immensely to the Indian economy, especially through the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. Indians account for the second largest student population in the US, after the Chinese.

The Sri Lankan diaspora too can become a positive force. The communal riots in Sri Lanka’s history led to a brain drain. Even today, many youngsters are leaving the country because of political uncertainty and weak economic conditions. The emigrating population is in fact a loss of wealth and resource for the nation. The diaspora should be transformed into a valuable lobby group instead of spending millions on lobby firms.

It is important for Sri Lanka to take strategic steps in readjusting its foreign policy in a multipolar world, and these steps should include an important role for the Sri Lankan diaspora. Rather than wasting resources on projects like building the tallest Christmas tree in the world and re-painting the yellow pedestrian crossing lines to white in the name of beautifying cities, it is important to focus on critical issues facing the common people and the nation.

* Asanga Abeyagoonasekera
Director General, Institute of National Security Studies (INSS), Sri Lanka & Columnist, IPCS

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Despite the victory of the opposition Social Democrats, SDSM, in the election re-run on Sunday in the village of Tearce in Macedonia, the number of seats that each bloc won in the December 11 elections remains the same. The ruling VMRO DPMNE party won 51 and the SDSM 49 in the 120-seat parliament.

The opposition won 245 votes in Tearce and the ruling party won just 150.

This was not enough to break the threshold, a difference of 304 votes, in the sixth electoral unit, where Tearce is located, that would have given both parties 50 seats.

Both parties have since reiterated they were the true victors in the elections and would therefore form the next government.

“This was a symbolic vote. The people of Tearce, like the rest of the Macedonian voters, opted for change and a better future, regardless of the pressures that were present,” SDSM MP Petre Shilegov said. He added that the SDSM would go on to form the next government.

The ruling VMRO DPMNE party, which initially said it would boycott the re-run as an attempt to steal its victory, said the attempt had failed.

“As the [overall] winners in the elections we remain committed to the next steps in formation of a new government,” the ruling party said in a press release.

To form a stable majority in parliament of at least 61 MPs, both main parties now need the support of one or preferably two of the ethnic Albanian parties that entered parliament.

At a meeting this weekend, the junior ruling party, the Democratic Union for Integration, DUI which won 10 seats, and the opposition Alliance for Albanians, led by the DPA – Movement for Reforms, which won three, agreed to the demands they would put to their bigger Macedonian counterparts.

These were official status for the Albanian language over the entire territory of Macedonia, the prolongation of the work of the Special Prosecution, which investigates high-level crime, action on EU-mandated reform priorities, a fair distribution of the state budget along ethnic lines and consensual decision-making on all important issues.

The DUI, which spent eight years in government with VMRO DPMNE, also hinted that it would not exclude talks on a government with the opposition SDSM.

The opposition Besa party, which won seven seats, and the Democratic Party of Albanians, DPA, which won two, declined the DUI’s invitation for joint talks.

However, they hinted at similar demands, including a condition not to include any people in government who are being investigated by the Special Prosecution. This would eliminate the VMRO DPMNE leader, Nikola Gruevski.

Now the voting is finally over, parliament has until December 31 to hold its inaugural session.

President Gjorge Ivanov has until January 9 to hand over the mandate for formation of a new government to one of the two main party leaders, Nikola Gruevski or Zoran Zaev.

After one of them proves he has a majority in parliament, parliament has until February 16 to vote for the new government.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/uncertainty-over-new-government-stays-after-macedonia-rerun-12-26-2016#sthash.ePaamVPv.dpuf

By Samuel Morgan

(EurActiv) — Carmaker Volkswagen has taken the surprise decision to ditch German as its official working language and switch to English, in a move intended to attract high-level management but which has already been denounced by German language advocates.

One of the most interesting issues to immediately emerge from the United Kingdom’s June Brexit vote was whether English would retain its coveted status as the EU’s main lingua franca. But one of Europe’s biggest companies, the Volkswagen Group, has officially switched to it.

The change is intended to streamline recruitment and attract international talent to high-level management positions by removing the challenging linguistic barrier posed by the German language.

Dr. Karlheinz Blessing, the carmaker’s management guru, said in a statement that “in future [sic], English is to be the Group language”, adding that “we need the best people in the world”.

Although the car builder is primarily known for building ‘Das Auto’, the VW Group also controls foreign brands like Bugatti, Bentley, Lamborghini and SEAT, which are originally French, English, Italian and Spanish, respectively.

Volkswagen’s ditching of the language of Goethe in favour of that of Shakespeare is also a sign that the carmaker is set to focus more on the American market, particularly in the wake of the Dieselgate scandal that saw the German giant exposed for installing ‘defeat devices’ on its cars.

However, VW’s linguistic shift has already been criticised and German language society Deutsche Sprache has decided to sell its holdings in the carmaker in protest. The organisation, which was set up to protect the German language from being marginalised in the media or world of business, sold all 200 of its shares.

Deutsche Sprache spokesperson Walter Krämer said that he was “appalled how carefree our elites abandon their own language and culture”. The organisation also added that the decision was “totally unnecessary” and insisted that VW’s perception of German as a barrier to recruitment was unfounded.

Interestingly, the foundation bought its modest portfolio of shares after Volkswagen was implicated in the Dieselgate scandal before selling them for a €7,000 profit. Krämer quipped that the foundation would wait for the next market crash to reinvest its earnings but that Volkswagen would not be the recipient.

While its defence of the German language is admirable, one could argue that its ethics when it comes to the environment are less commendable.

After OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, arrived at a consensus to contain oil production, I wrote that the real threat for Saudi Arabia was not Iran, but the US shale producers.

Some of my critics said that I suffer from US-phobia and try to portray whatever happens on the earth as part of US conspiracy. Nevertheless, this morning when I read a news article from Reuters about the increasing number of rig counts in the US, it gave me a feeling that I was not mislead by the western media, but right in saying that with the hike in crude oil prices, the rig count in the US would jump dramatically.

According to the Baker Hughes, US energy companies have added oil rigs for an eighth week in a row as crude oil prices rose to a 17-month high. During the week ended December 23, 2016 the total rig count went up by 523, the most since December 2015.

The report also said that by May this past year rig count had plunged to 316, from a record high of 1,609 in October 2014. This decline could be attributed to crude oil prices that plunged to US$26/barrel in February 2016 from US$107/barrel in June 2014.

The report also indicated that oil and gas rigs counts would average above 500 in 2016, around 750 in 2017 and above 900 in 2018. This confirms the news that while other oil producing countries have curtailed fresh investment, US shale producers continued production without filing bankruptcy under Chapter 11.

The Reuters news should be an eye opener for oil producing countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. This should not be the first to cut production and let the crude oil prices rise. If they want to keep US shale producers under pressure, they will have to keep crude oil prices below US$35/barrel. This may be painful, but it is the only option to bring down the number of active rigs in the US. They should also keep an eye on E&P companies filing bankruptcy under Chapter 11.

Religious architecture in the region of Ordubad, Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan (Azerbaijan), has established new paradigms in the shaping of Azerbaijani Islamic culture, interfaith dialogue, and has reflected a deep sense of conviction within its citizens and a unique enrichment of religious tolerance, cultural dialogue, and multicultural coexistence.

The region of Ordubad is the symbol of a religious harmony, unique architectural treasures that enshrine the superior values of the architecture school founded by Ajami Ibn Abubakr Nakhchivani, the city displays to the world a great sense of Azerbaijani patriotism and is home of many beautiful mosques that ought to be visited by religious scholars, international university researchers and be given a special international status by UNESCO; during the upcoming commemorations that will take place in Nakhchivan in 2018, as this region of Azerbaijan will become the World’s capital of Islamic Culture and Art.

The region of Ordubad is known for its famous apricots that were exported regularly to Moscow and other parts of the Soviet Union; however its religious treasures, mosques and archeological sites are not well known internationally, they must acquire a wider presence abroad.

The city of Ordubad has distinguished itself for having seven principal avenues, on each one of these avenues it has: a mosque without a minaret; an underground fresh water creek; traditional, rare Caucasian homes equipped with a main entrance door that has two types of ancient knocking metal rings that produce two different types of sounds (one of them is used by men and the other used by women). Some of the most important mosques in Ordubad region are: Dilbar Mosque, Dirnis Mosque, Haji Huseyngulu Mosque.

In Ordubad City is located Dilbar Mosque, a historical and architectural monument that provide some unique features to foreign visitors and theologians. In Ordubad City there are a number of buildings that embody special values of Nakhchivan architectural school and Dilbar Mosque is one of them. The mosque is open to the public for religious ceremonies. The structure is right angled, has a square shape and equipped with columns. Many of the mosque’s features are a representation of Nakhchivan’s school of architecture. Dilbar Mosque is an example of an architectural composition that intertwines style and structure that was typical in the 1700s. This Mosque is furnished with its altar, latticed windows; the entrance gate is on its main façade. The main entrance and its sides have incorporated big windows and sections that are latticed, with asymmetric installation of the head span and other marvelous features. This uniqueness shows that Dilbar Mosque embodies a perfect harmony with Ordubad’s architecture and urban – rural landscape.

According to the history of Ordubad, preserved by its residents, Dilbar Mosque was built to honor a woman named Dilbar and it has emerged as a center of Islamic faith established to honor the valuable role of women in the Muslim faith and its emblematic communities across the Caucasus region.

Another religious landmark is Dirnis Mosque, located on Mirza Street in Yukhari, Dirnis Village, and Region of Ordubad. It has a large size and the local people call it with the name ‘Boyuk Masjid’ meaning a large Mosque (Jame Mosque). Its main entrance is from the western side and for women is on the east side. Its ceiling stands on five poles on each side, totaling ten poles or columns. In front of the East – North wall there was built a balcony on the first floor to host women. The Mosque has: three big windows in the east wall, two windows on the western wall; and three windows on the southern wall.

According to the inscription located at the head of one of the columns, written in black color, it is very clear that the Mosque was repaired in 1920-1921 and it was Architect Hasan from Ordubad who had repaired this cultural monument. Once again, this religious monument was renovated in 1999 at the expense of the local people and a balcony had been assembled in front of the entrance door on the west side, where a minaret was also erected. According to its architectural features, the Dirnis Mosque was first built and erected in the XVII Century.

In the village of Ganza, region of Ordubad, stands tall the historic Haji Huseyngulu Mosque, located right at the center of the village. Its size is 23 meters by 14 meters, according to the local community, this Mosque was built by Haji Huseyngulu, an influential man who was active in promoting various shapes and construction styles from the Ajami Nakhchivani Architecture School. When Haji Huseyngulu passed away, he was buried in front of the southern wall of this gorgeous creamy white-brick mosque. At a later stage, the renovation team of this Mosque placed a head stone above the tomb of Haji Huseyngulu, the words of the late “Haji Huseyngulu of the XVI century,” are carved in Arabic language, on the head stone.

This is considered to be one of the oldest mosques of Nakhchivan and throughout Azerbaijan, it is a unique religious monument, inside it has a big hall. According to the local builders, in the beginning of the XX Century there was built an additional hall that was joined with the hallway of males that is located in the western part of the old Mosque. The old part of the mosque and its main hall sits on three big columns and walls built of stones. Its inner-columns and its sections between the columns and walls are connected through a span shape and its walls reach one meter of thickness. Five wall recesses have been placed inside of the mosque. A balcony is in front of the entrance; its façade consists of 12 spans. Near the mosque there is a guest house, when this object was restored there were written colorful religion words on its limed walls.

During its restoration project a wonderful minaret was added to this cultural monument on the South Western side of the structure. On the minaret is written an inscription that says: “this minaret of the mosque was built by Haji Israfil Sadigli in 2000; architects Karbalayi Sayid, Karbalayi Gurban.”

There are always held mourning events and religious ceremonies during the months of Muharram and Ramadan that take place in this Mosque; certainly during the commemoration events of Nakhchivan Region becoming the World’s Capital of Islamic Culture in 2018, there will be taking place memorable events in the Haji Huseyngulu Mosque.

The area on the southern side of the mosque at one time belonged to Haji Huseyngulu who donated this land to be the Mosque’s cemetery. Based on the grave inscriptions of this cemetery it is ascertained that Haji Huseyngulu lived during the XV century and this Mosque was built in that time.

The 2018 World celebrations of Islamic Culture in Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic are approaching; foreign visitors, tourists and scholars must visit the Region of Ordubad in order to appreciate a series of unique architectural features tailored by Ajami Nakhchivani that are melted together with: an ancient Islamic Culture, attractive religious tolerance practices, deeply rooted historical awareness within the context of Azerbaijani historiography.

In the spirit of New Year’s, here are four resolutions for president-elect Trump and Congress that will enable them to really make America great again:

1) Audit the Fed….and then end it: The Federal Reserve Bank’s easy money polices have eroded the American people’s standard of living and facilitated the growth of the welfare-warfare state. The Fed is also responsible for the growth in income inequality. Yet Congress still refuses to pass Audit the Fed, much less end it.

During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump promised that Audit the Fed would be part of his first 100 days agenda. Unfortunately, he has not spoken of auditing the Fed or another aspect of monetary policy since the election. President-elect Trump should keep his promise and work with Congress to pass Audit the Fed and finally let the American people know the truth about the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Then, of course, end the Fed.

2) Bring the troops home: President Barack Obama has not only failed to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, he has further destabilized the Middle East with reckless interventions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The Obama administration has also brought us to the brink of a new Cold War.

President-elect Trump has criticized the 2003 Iraq war and promised to end nation-building. However, he has also made hawkish statements such as his recent endorsement of increased US military intervention in Syria and has appointed several hawks to key foreign policy positions. President-elect Trump also supported increasing the Pentagon’s already bloated budget.

America cannot afford to continue wasting trillions of dollars in a futile effort to act as the world’s policeman. Rejecting the neocon polices of nation-building and spreading democracy by force of arms is a good start. However, if Donald Trump is serious about charting a new course in foreign policy, his first act as president should be to withdraw US troops from around the globe. He should also veto any budget that does not drastically cut spending on militarism.

3) Repeal ObamaCare: ObamaCare has raised healthcare costs for millions of Americans while denying them access to the providers of their choice. Public dissatisfaction with ObamaCare played a major role in Donald Trump’s election.

Unfortunately, since the election president-elect Trump and the Republican Congress have talked about retaining key parts of Obamacare! While it is reasonable to have a transition to a new healthcare system, Congress must avoid the temptation to replace ObamaCare with “ObamaCare lite.” Congress must pass, and President Trump must sign, a true free-market health care plan that restores control over healthcare to individuals.

4) Cut Taxes and Spending: President-elect Trump and Congressional leadership both favor tax reform. However, some leading Republicans have recently said they will not support any tax reform plan that is not “revenue neutral.” A true pro-liberty tax reform would reduce government revenue by eliminating the income tax. Fiscal hawks concerned with increasing federal deficits should stop trying to increase tax revenues and join with supporters of limited government to drastically cut federal spending. Congress should prioritize ending corporate welfare, reducing military spending, and shutting down unconstitutional federal agencies like the Department of Education.

If President Trump and Congress spend the next six months passing Audit the Fed, ending our militaristic foreign policy, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with a true free-market health care system, and cutting both spending and taxes, they will begin to make America great again. If they fail to take these steps, then the American people will know they have been fooled again.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Not long after the upcoming New Year Eve the United States will enter a new political scene with the inauguration of its new president, Donald Trump. This, along with the changes across the globe, may turn the page into a new chapter.

One existing problem that is mounting global concern for the coming year is Iran’s continuous disrespect for international laws. Last year’s nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), may have contained Iran’s weapons program, and yet has failed to stop its flagrant misconducts. The ayatollahs’ thirst for weapons of mass destruction is not curbed, meddling in other states continue and domestic human rights violations have skyrocketed.

Likewise, innocent civilians have been harmed by terrorists in Europe and United States. Is there any means to prevent such miseries in the future? What measures Trump administration and his European counterparts can take to contain Iran’s aggressiveness and to correct the past mistakes?

Speaking to leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in Bahrain, British Prime Minister Theresa May was “clear-eyed” about Iran’s destabilizing role in the region. She emphasized her country wanted to “make a more permanent and more enduring commitment to the long-term security of the Gulf”.

The 37th GCC Supreme Council meeting, concluding in Manama on December 7th, stressed the need for Iran to change its policy in the region, so as to abide by international conventions and treaties and not to embrace and harbor terrorist groups on its territory, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, or support terrorist militias and ignite sectarian strife in region.

Meanwhile, Tehran’s ayatollahs seem not willing to retreat from their warmongering policies. On December 2nd, Iranian General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri told a crowd of Iranian naval commanders that they needed distant bases on the shores of other foreign countries, such as Syria and Yemen, or even “floating” bases. Iran is a close ally of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, parallel to state-sanctioned Iraqi Shiite militias. Iran’s paramilitary forces resent to Syria are behind the massacre of innocent civilians in Aleppo and other Syrian cities.

While the people in the Middle East are frustrated with Iran’s proxy terrorist groups, Iranian officials deceitfully pose as friends. Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani delivered a speech at a recent security conference, saying Iran, along with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, should join together to promote “regional peace based on Islam, defending the Palestinian people, fighting terrorism and economic interests.”

This repetitive hoax does not alter regional attitudes regarding Iran’s rulers.
“The entire world knows that is working to destabilize our region. Iran must respect principles of good neighborliness if it wishes to normalize ties,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir at a joint press conference in December, with French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault.

Earlier in July, former Saudi intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal made a statement while attending a gathering in Paris organized by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a coalition containing Iranian organizations, including People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), struggling to bring about peace and democracy in Iran. Faisal accused Iran of destabilizing the region and “spreading chaos” through its support for militant organizations.

NCRI President-elect Maryam Rajavi, president elect of the National Council of Resistance (NCRI), said in a recent visit to the European Parliament: “Under the rule of Iranian regime, every single article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated. The right to life, the right to freedom, the right to security, the right to protection from torture and arbitrary arrests, the right of freedom of religion and faith .”

Ret. General David Petraeus believes a global deal to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions contains elements “of great concern. “ He told Fox News TV channel, “The Iranians have virtually dictated our Middle East policy,” he said to Fox News TV.

When the Obama administration turned its back to the people of Iran back in 2009 and with, it encouraged Iran to be more unrestrained in its breach of human rights in and out of the country.

The defeat of Obama’s doctrine, namely “appeasement policy toward the fundamentalist regime of Iran,”expanded extremism and state sponsor terrorism.
History cannot give us a roadmap for the future, but it can give us a fuller understanding of the past, so that we face the future better prepared.

Iran change is the final solution.

*Hassan Mahmoudi is a  human rights advocate and Social Media journalist seeking democracy for Iran and peace for the region.

By Ashok Malik

There is no doubt 2016 has been a momentous, tempestuous, eventful year. In the past few weeks, this writer has read pieces comparing its import to 1498 (the year Vasco da Gama found the sea route to India and opened up the riches of the East to western Europe), to 1848 (Europe’s “Year of Revolutions”), to the period immediately before World War I, to the period immediately before World War II.

At a conference in September, it was mildly amusing but also telling to have two speakers — unconnected and uncoordinated — make World War I analogies. The first was a European, who described the situation in his continent as fraught and resembling the international order and great power equation just prior to World War I. The second was an Asian, who described the situation in his continent as fraught and resembling the international order and great power equation just prior to World War I.

Obviously the fact that we are living through the centenary of the Great War (1914-18) has evoked multiple reference points. In 2017, the world will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, a spectacular success and then a spectacular failure, all in the course of less than a century: the revolution itself had been devoured and the Soviet Union had gone by 1990.

Nevertheless, the new salience of Russia and President Vladimir Putin’s penchant for Big Politics will draw even more 1917 analogies in the coming year.

At the turn of the previous century, the cracking of the Concert of Europe caused two world wars after an era of post-Napoleonic calm. The turbulence leading up to the second of those wars was intensified by an economic crisis. What do these precedents mean to us, if they mean anything at all? No exact comparisons are possible but a study of the past would offer clues as to the timelines of history and the pace at which events move and seemingly axiomatic truths can be disrupted.

The Concert of Europe eventually ended because a new and non-status quoist power — Germany — wanted its place at the high table. Traditional powers were unwilling to cede space and a conflict resulted. Additionally, the rising tides of nationalism and populism and turbulence at Europe’s Islamic doorstep led to the fraying of the concert. It is possible to find aspects of all these challenges today in the troubled European Union project.

Europe is divided on several counts. There is nationalism and nostalgia, couched in the economic certainties of an earlier age. Brexit was one manifestation of this and British politicians, even those who know better and realise trade currents cannot be wished away, find themselves paralysed into not telling the public what it doesn’t want to hear. Similar urges are being seen in France — which sees a presidential election in 2017 in which the pendulum is certain to swing right — and Italy, perhaps even Germany, where fears are perceived not from a liberal economy but liberal migration.

Yet, more than Europe itself, the evocation of the dying years of the Concert of Europe is perhaps apposite in Asia. Here too, in the waters of the Indo-Pacific, there is non-status quoist power — China — headed by a “core leader”: Asia’s would-be Kaiser, Xi Jinping. The traditional multilateral architecture of the region, underpinned by American capacity, is under strain. The United States has a taste for taking on China but it remains unclear, despite Donald Trump’s election and rhetoric, if it has the stomach.

Mr. Trump has promised a muscular, militarist foreign policy and approach to China. He has offered to befriend Russia, number three as it were, in an alliance to take on number two. He has spoken loosely — though one suspects not without design — of an arms race in Asia and of a wave of weaponisation, even hinting at the N word. The re-militarisation of Japan and enhancing capacities of South Korea and India are probably on his horizon, as is the scramble for ASEAN — a bloc now split between the two superpowers.

Yet, while all this may make for excitement and action in the short run, a fundamental contradiction remains. American investment in the security of the Indo-Pacific region was linked to its trade and economic interests.

In 2016, it was questions such as these that threw the international order into a tizzy. They will haunt it as January 2017 begins its journey, with the inauguration of the new American President. So many other imponderables will play themselves out in the coming year — the beginning of the formal British departure from the EU; the unwillingness of China to give India space and its attempt to hem in Narendra Modi; the crumbling of old certitudes in southeast Asia; the prospect of the US reversing a policy that, since the Iraq war of 2003, had served to strengthen Shia regimes in West Asia and once more banking on Saudi Arabia to take on Iran; the ability of a new general in Pakistan to yet again leverage his nation’s geography; the ability of Russia to punch politically — but in the ultimate reckoning, punch above its economic weight.

In a sense, many of these phenomena go back to the financial crisis of 2008, the biggest shock to the global economic system since the 1929. Nine years after 1929, a nervous, pessimistic and Hobbesian world was plunged into war. Well, 2017 is nine years after 2008.

This article originally appeared in The Asian Age.

By Vappala Balachandran*

On December 23 US President Elect Donald Trump “stunned” nuclear weapons experts by telling Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe programme” that he was encouraging a nuclear arms race. This interview had followed his December 22nd tweet: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”.

It is not clear whether Trump, who does not usually care to be briefed on such complicated subjects, has bothered to know that his outburst had negated 35 years of bipartisan US policy of reducing nuclear weapons. According to published sources President Obama had carried out a review of US nuclear capability in 2013 and found that US “already had a third more strategic weapons than were necessary to ensure nuclear deterrence”.

By sheer coincidence this outburst has come when the George Washington University’s “National Security Archives” had managed to declassify and release a file on December 22, 2016 on the same subject. This was a Top Secret file “Reagan Nuclear War Briefing” which had taken place at the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) on 15 November 1981. Washington Post had covered this event without details on 16 November 1981. The Post report “Reagan Flies in ‘Doomsday’ Plane” had said that NEACP could fly 72 hours without refueling. It described the aircraft as “three-fourths the length of a football field” and “contains six areas for planning and directing military action in times of national emergencies.” The National Military Command System (NMCS) at that time had consisted of National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, the Alternate National Military Command Center, Raven Rock in Pennsylvania, the NEACP, and the communications systems interlinking them.

Donald Trump and his advisers would be well advised to study this file to know about the destructive potential of nuclear weapons even in 1981. In the background of the Cold War tensions, the briefing at that time had estimated that without civil defence, 80 million Americans could die if the Soviets launched a surprise nuclear attack. Reagan was already one year into his presidency and this was his first detailed briefing. Earlier he had received only shorter overviews of the U.S. nuclear programme. This briefing session came when a major Pentagon nuclear command post exercise known as IVY LEAGUE 82, aimed to test decision-making in a nuclear war, was about to be launched.

During this exercise it was found that the US national military command systems as above would be hit in case of surprise attack. US counter ability would depend upon how soon the “alternate Command Center, Special Facility [at Mount Weather, VA] and some of emergency locations” could be made functional. The briefing said that “Reagan and his advisers were not yet aware that the Soviets had similar fears of a surprise attack and were searching for intelligence that could warn them of a U.S. attack.” The American counter attack would target “the Kremlin leadership as one of the primary targets of retaliation”. The declassified report added: “Reagan would soon become a leading proponent of sharply reducing, and even abolishing, both sides’ nuclear stockpiles”.

However this reduction process was seriously threatened in November 1983 when a US- NATO war games “Operation Able Archer” caused fears in Kremlin leadership that a “nuclear strike was a real possibility”. Declassification of these papers was done in November 2013 through the efforts by Peter Burt, director of the Nuclear Information Service (NIS), London. This was published in the Guardian (UK) on 2 November 2013. The report indicated how risky the Cold War had become with near misses by 1983.

The NATO exercise had taken place during a period of great international tension. In March 1983 President Reagan had made his “Star Wars” speech outlining his “Strategic Defense Initiative” against Soviet Union. In September 1983 the Soviets had shot down KAL 007, a Korean Airlines Boeing 747, killing all 269 people on board. The plane had mistakenly strayed into their airspace and they thought that it was an American spy plane. Competitive rhetoric between 2 super powers had escalated global tensions.

“Able Archer” which started in November involved 40,000 US-NATO troops in Europe, co-coordinated by encrypted communications systems. In the imaginary scenario Warsaw Pact countries (Orange forces) would intervene in Yugoslavia following political unrest. NATO (Blue Forces) were defending their allies. The War games included a scenario of Orange forces expanding their operations into Finland, Norway and finally to Greece. The conflict would escalate from conventional war into use of chemical and nuclear weapons. “Able Archer” appeared to be so realistic that “it made the Russians believe that a nuclear strike on its territory was a real possibility”.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on being briefed by her Intelligence of the Soviet reaction, ordered her officials to lobby with the Americans to make sure that such a mistake could never happen again. Peter Burt was quoted saying that these incidents were “a pivotal moment in modern history – the point at which an alarmed Thatcher government realised that the cold war had to be brought to an end and began the process of persuading its American allies likewise.” He continued: “The Cold War is sometimes described as a stable ‘balance of power’ between east and west, but the Able Archer story shows that it was in fact a shockingly dangerous period when the world came to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe on more than one occasion.”

President Elect Trump should study these snippets from history to realize that casual remarks on such important subjects cannot be made without consulting security professionals. This is all the more necessary since his nominations for higher security positions in his government do not inspire confidence on their mature decision making abilities. These incidents also hold lessons to our Central political leadership that belligerent daily balderdash against Pakistan for domestic impression by our official spokesmen, supported by a complying visual media could entail similar risks.

*The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat who was a member of the High Level Enquiry Committee into the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks. His book “National Security & Intelligence Management-A New Paradigm” was released in 2014

By Ilke Toygür*

The past two months have witnessed a variety of institutional responses to the recent developments in Turkey. To start with, on 9 November the European Commission published its annual progress report on Turkey as a candidate country, while the discussion on ‘how to “handle” this hot potato’ was included in the informal agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 14 November. According to both institutions, even if things have gone pretty bad, keeping the negotiation framework alive, and communication channels open, is the cleverest thing to do. On the other hand, members of the European Parliament (EP) voted a resolution for a ‘temporary freeze on EU accession talks with Turkey’ on 24 November. The resolution was approved by 479 votes to 37, with 107 abstentions. Even if it is a non-binding decision and the Member States have the final word, the message was crystal clear. Then, in December, the Member States gave their final verdict: ‘The full respect of commitments and established conditionality in accession negotiations will contribute to EU-Turkey relations achieving their full potential’. All these different European responses, which would be even more diverse were each Member State looked at it greater detail, require further analysis.

What has been going on in Turkey – according to the European Commission?

The European Commission’s Turkey 2016 Report was far more critical than in previous years. The word ‘backsliding’ has frequently been used while focusing on the rule of law and freedom of expression. The concerns related to the detention and arrest of several members of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), including the two co-chairs, have been clearly underlined. The report has also provided a full summary of the suspensions, dismissals and arrests that took place after the attempted coup. According to the report, as of the end of September 2016, some 40,000 individuals have been detained and more than 31,000 remain under arrest, including 81 journalists. Meanwhile, 129,000 public employees remain either suspended or have been dismissed and over 4,000 institutions and private companies have been shut down. The report also questioned the criteria applied and evidence used to determine alleged links to the attempted coup and terrorist activity, querying whether they were transparent and non-discriminatory. The process has also led to the closure of media outlets and newspapers, including Cumhuriyet, one of the oldest, most critical and popular newspapers in the history of Turkish Republic.

As for the usual framework of accession negotiations, 16 chapters have been opened and only one has been provisionally closed. On the other hand, cooperation in the areas of joint interest –most importantly the fight against terrorism and irregular migration– continued in line with the conclusions of the EU-Turkey Summit of November 2015. The visa liberalisation roadmap, with possible visa-free travel being the most concrete contribution to Turkish citizens’ lives, is said to be still on track, awaiting the attainment of the remaining benchmarks by the Turkish government. In short, the European Commission’s document provided its summary within the framework of accession negotiations. This year, for the first time, the framework was accompanied by the EU-Turkey statement of 20 March.

The position of the European Parliament, the only directly-elected institution

The members of the European Parliament (EP) voted on a resolution for a ‘temporary freeze in EU accession talks with Turkey’. As mentioned above, the resolution was approved by 479 votes to 37, with 107 abstentions. Despite being a non-binding decision, the message to Turkey was very clear. Figure 1 shows the votes by political group in the European Parliament, bringing into relief the sharp differences between them.

The groups are ordered according to their size, starting with the biggest group: the European People’s Party (EPP). As shown in Figure 1, the decision to vote for the resolution is very common among all political groups. However, in the Eurosceptic group of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD), which is led by politicians from UKIP and Alternative für Deutschland and includes Movimento 5 Stelle, there were many abstentions. It is a very ironic point to underline, since these political parties constantly use Turkish candidacy as a tool for anti-EU propaganda. Another political group to look at is the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), who call themselves ‘euro-realist’. Even though a deeper analysis of this vote is beyond this paper’s scope, the importance of realpolitik in decision-making should always be borne in mind, even if the final decision is a strong message to Turkey.

Realpolitik still dominates the positions of Member States

On 14 November the EU’s 28 Foreign Ministers met in Brussels to discuss the Union’s relations with Turkey, in addition to their agenda on common foreign and security policy and global strategy for the EU. Once the Foreign Affairs Council Meeting was concluded the message was clear: the partnership with Turkey in security and migration management is very important. Although Austria’s Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz reiterated his call to halt accession talks with Turkey, he failed to obtain enough support from his co-ministers. The declarations of Federica Mogherini, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, on the latest developments in Turkey and her remarks at the press conference after the summit were clear signs of concern, but still, there was not enough political will for a substantial move, at least for now. A very similar situation was repeated in December as expected, underlining the importance of commitment to the process and common goals. The declarations after the summit underlined the fact that Turkey is a key partner in various dimensions and that its commitment to the partnership should continue. In short, the representatives of the Member States, the Union’s intergovernmental front, have been avoiding making any dramatic moves regarding Turkish-EU relations.

Even if there is an institutional dispute some things on the list are very clear

The institutional division between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council regarding Turkey has become even more visible over this period. Both Member States and institutions are divided on the steps that are required to be taken. There are three main considerations that are halting any dramatic rupture:

• The highly-criticised EU-Turkish refugee deal and the fight against illegal migration. This has been ‘the’ issue on the European agenda for 2016.
• The fight against terrorism. With the election of Donald Trump as US President, Europe will have to rely more on itself and on its bilateral relations in terms of its foreign and security policies.
• The reunification of Cyprus. Turkey is an important player on this front and its contribution to the process for a positive outcome in very advanced negotiations is extremely important.

Trade relations and all the other economic ties could be added to the list. For these reasons, no dramatic gesture should be expected, at least for now. Still, one thing is also very clear: further statements underlining how worried EU officials are, are most certainly very unwelcome by even the most Europhile citizens of the Turkish Republic, when taking into consideration the country’s public opinion. On the other hand, there is also a very tough electoral calendar facing the EU. France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, four out of the six founder-members, will be going to the polls in coming months. Hence, their governments will attempt to avoid any problems with Turkey in order to protect themselves from any issues related to the refugee agreement, which might cause an increase in refugee flows to Europe right before the elections. It is also known that populist parties will use any migration-related issues wisely. Taking all into consideration, even if the current situation in Turkey is very alarming –maybe even more than ever– no dramatic rupture is likely.

The EU is, in any case, moving towards a new model of differentiated integration. It is safe to claim that there will be a new offer for Turkey in this new structure in the near future. All this will be discussed right after the critical elections to be held in Europe next year.

About the author:
*Ilke Toygür, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) & Istanbul Policy Center (IPC) | @ilketoygur

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

By Joycee A. Teodoro*

The ASEAN Charter and key documents, such as the ASEAN Community Vision 2025: Forging Ahead Together, explicitly state that ASEAN maintains its centrality in the regional processes and in the conduct of its external affairs. Maintaining centrality is crucial to ASEAN’s success as a regional bloc and critical to its relevance in the international arena.

Moreover, through ASEAN centrality, a rules-based regional order is promoted and developed, consequently diffusing potential tension and conflict between and among states, whether big or small. ASEAN centrality rests on the idea that ASEAN has the capacity to play a leading and driver role vis-à-vis regional agenda setting.1 It also puts premium on ASEAN’s ability to act as leader, driver, and fulcrum of regional initiatives in relating with its external partners, while promoting, first and foremost, ASEAN’s own interests.

ASEAN centrality is defined as ASEAN’s role in the regional security architecture, regional order, and the power dynamics between and among external powers that have interests in the region. However, the assertion of this centrality draws strength from a politically cohesive, strategically coherent and economically prosperous ASEAN. These will serve as strong foundations for ASEAN in playing and asserting with credibility this centrality role.

However, ASEAN’s cohesion, coherence and relations within ASEAN are showing cracks. The setbacks in recent years, most especially in the political-security issues, have only highlighted the internal friction between and among the AMS, due in part to the differences in threat perception on strategic issues they face in common.

Moreover, the AMS are facing domestic issues that may divide their attention—whether attending first to the needs of the country and their constituents or attending to their regional commitments. It is against this backdrop that ASEAN is having a hard time in asserting with confidence its centrality.

Distracted ASEAN?

The imperative on the AMS to deliver on the regional commitments as outlined by past and newly adopted blueprints cannot be overemphasized. More so, the expectation on ASEAN to make a unified stand on key strategic issues becomes more pressing not only because ASEAN is now formally a Community, but because the dynamic geostrategic environment demands it to be one.

But looking closely as to how ASEAN has responded as a bloc to strategic issues, one may be led to think that ASEAN may be falling short of expectations; the implications of which falls heavily on its credibility to assert a central role. In recent months, ASEAN was faced with situations wherein its unity and resolve as a bloc was put under stress. The setbacks in Kunming during the Special ASEAN-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and the non-issuance of an ASEAN statement with regard to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the Philippines’ case are some examples that show ASEAN is falling behind expectations. Rather than being able to come up with a common voice, these situations only highlight that with respect to pressing developments, the AMS are not all on the same side of the fence. These also point to the bigger picture that the appreciation of issues, or threat perception among the countries, remains different among the AMS.

With respect to domestic issues, the individual AMS are also faced with concerns that need immediate attention. The possible implication of such a situation is that these may more likely to take precedence over the regional concerns. Domestic politics, no doubt, will have a ripple effect on ASEAN. For instance, several AMS are facing political and economic uncertainties. In Cambodia, there is a growing concern on the escalation of political tensions between the government and the opposition as the general election in 2018 draws near. Malaysia has been grappling with questions on the political legitimacy of its leadership due to governance issues.

Myanmar, while undergoing numerous changes since a new leadership was installed, is facing some setbacks, in particular on the peace process with the indigenous groups (e.g., Rohingya). Under a new leadership, the Philippines is recalibrating its policy directions, with a strong focus on internal peace and order situation, in particular fighting drugs and criminality.

Also, the country’s foreign policy is undergoing some calibrations under the new administration.

In Thailand, there is a cloud of uncertainty on the country’s political future as it transitions to a new era without the guidance of its revered leader King Bhumibol Addulyadej, the anchor of the Thai society. Indonesia, meanwhile, is relatively less engaged regionally as it was before and the effect of which is palpable because Indonesia is regarded as the natural leader of ASEAN. As a result, ASEAN has been devoid of Indonesia’s leadership and guidance.2 On the other hand, this may also provide an opportunity for other AMS to take on the responsibility of leading ASEAN in sectors where they are believed to be at the forefront.

Without question, all of these developments affect the regional bloc. Their domestic politics/concerns may distract the respective governments to deal with regional issues. Also, due to different appreciation of issues such as geostrategic ones, the AMS may be susceptible into making compromises that may only be beneficial to a few but not to the entire ASEAN region. It may be timely to remember what S. Rajaratnam, one of the Founding Fathers of ASEAN said during the signing of the Bangkok Declaration – that there is a need to have a two-level mindset wherein the AMS do not only think about their national interests “but posit them against regional interests”. He furthered that while these two may conflict, ASEAN needs to face these painful adjustments if the bloc intends to succeed.

Drawing ASEAN centrality from internal progress

ASEAN’s next steps on the deepening and broadening of regional community building efforts have been laid down by the ASEAN Community Vision 2025. In addition, the recently adopted Initiative for ASEAN Integration Work Plan III and the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025 will complement the Community Pillars’ blueprints to ensure that community building remains on track. More importantly, the Leaders, through the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on ASEAN 2025, resolved that the AMS together with the ASEAN Organs and Bodies shall implement the action lines identified in these documents.

These documents are aimed at delivering tangible benefits to the region, to the individual AMS, and more importantly, to the peoples of ASEAN. The vision of achieving an integrated ASEAN will bear into fruition if these regional commitments are translated down to the domestic level.

The work is cut out for the AMS. Institutionally, the AMS are expected to take heed of regional developments so that the implementation of commitments is not constrained by the respective bureaucratic set-ups. The alignment of the regional instruments to the national policies is crucial if ASEAN intends to fast track the implementation of regional commitments down to the respective AMS. The successful realization of the vision and action lines, therefore, will result in a more progressive and stable ASEAN. These positive developments will undoubtedly help ASEAN in solidifying its stronghold on centrality.

The pressing issues faced by ASEAN, as a whole, and Member States, individually, should serve as a constant reminder to behave and act coherently. ASEAN centrality will not hold true even if the concept is established in the ASEAN Charter. Efforts and commitment are needed to ensure that centrality is not only on paper but practiced by ASEAN.

About the author:
* Joycee A. Teodoro is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Ms. Teodoro can be reached at jateodoro@fsi.gov.ph

Source:
This article was published by the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies (CIRSS) of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) focusing on the latest regional and global developments and issues. The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

Endnotes:
1SIIA. “ASEAN Centrality in the Regional Architecture.” Singapore Institute of International Affairs Policy Brief, 2015.

2Surin Pitsuwan. “ASEAN Beyond 2015: What to Expect?” Lecture, Mangrove Forum on International Relations, Foreign Service Institute, Pasay City, August 24, 2015, http://www.fsi.gov.ph/former-secretary-general-shares-views-on-aseans-future/

Over the years neither the Egyptian public, nor its various leaders, have exhibited much enthusiasm for a genuine friendship with Israel – this despite the peace treaty, signed way back in March 1979 by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Yet, through thick and thin, the treaty has held.

Among its main features, drawn up following Sadat’s historic visit to Israel in 1977, was normalization of relations. So ambassadors were exchanged, Egypt repealed its boycott laws, trade began to develop, regular airline flights were inaugurated, Egypt began supplying Israel with crude oil and, as part of the agreement, the US began a program of economic and military aid which over the years has subsidized Egypt’s armed forces by billions of dollars.

Egypt paid a price for the benefits it won through the treaty.  The Arab world condemned it root and branch, Egypt was suspended from the Arab League for ten years, and it led to Sadat’s assassination in 1981.

The revolution in Egypt in 2011, which resulted in the election of a Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president, led influential voices within Egypt to call for the treaty with Israel to be revoked.  The new government decided to abide by its international treaties, but the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during 2012-2013 was a golden age for Hamas, the de facto government in Gaza. In preparation for its next conflict with Israel, missiles and massive quantities of ammunition moved through the tunnels dug between Egypt and Gaza, together with the materials needed to manufacture armaments.

Egypt’s second revolution a year later, which replaced Mohammed Morsi with Fattah al-Sisi as president, turned the situation on its head. Sisi declared total war against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and by extension its offshoot Hamas in Gaza.  He designated both groups terrorist organizations, and was ruthless in rooting out their leaders and supporters. He shut down the crossing at Rafah through which armaments once flowed into Gaza, and destroyed more than a thousand tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border, Hamas’s secret conduit for supplies it could not obtain through Israel.

The Brotherhood responded to its overthrow by mounting a full-scale terrorist campaign, in conjunction with Hamas, both within Egypt proper and in the Sinai peninsula, where terrorist groups roamed at will, committing atrocity after atrocity.  These jihadi groups represented as great a threat to Israel as to Egypt, and the two countries began to cooperate more closely than ever before on military, security and intelligence issues.

It was in July-August 2014, during Operation Protective Edge – Israel’s response to Hamas’s rocket attacks – that realization began to dawn in Egypt’s media and élite that Egypt and Israel were fighting shoulder to shoulder against a common enemy.  Public figures began voicing support for Israel’s military operation in the Gaza Strip.

“Thank you Netanyahu,” wrote Azza Sami of the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, “and may God give us more like you to destroy Hamas!”  Addressing Gazan Palestinians, Egyptian actor Amr Mustafa told them not to expect any help from Egypt. “You must get rid of Hamas,” he said, “and then we will help you.”  On a TV program Egyptian presenter Amany al-Khayat launched a scathing attack on Hamas.  “Hamas is prepared to make all the residents of the Gaza Strip pay a heavy price,” she said. “We must not forget that Hamas is the armed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist movement.”  Egyptian ex-general Hamdi Bakhit actually expressed the hope that Israel would re-occupy the Gaza Strip.

On May 28, 2015, prominent Egyptian historian Maged Farag, appearing on the Mehwar TV channel, openly called for his country to normalize relations with Israel and to ditch support for the Palestinian cause which, he said, has caused “nothing but harm” for Egypt. Referring to the rampant anti-semitism among the Egyptian population, he urged his fellow countrymen to leave “the old ideology and cultural heritage on which we were raised”, and to embrace Israel out of the national interest.  The next day he made the headlines.

This softening of attitude towards Israel at opinion-forming level proved no flash in the pan.

For decades Egyptian TV soap operas, produced annually to entertain millions of Muslims breaking their fast during the holy month of Ramadan, were platforms for vitriolic anti-semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda.  For example the 2002 show Knight Without a Horse, based on the notorious anti-semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, almost caused Israel to withdraw its ambassador from Cairo. The 2012 series Naji Atallah’s Team portrayed Israel as deeply racist in its tale of an Egyptian group attempting to rob a bank.

In Ramadan 2015, by contrast, a TV drama about the Jews of Egypt struck a significantly different note. The plot of Haret al-Yahood, or The Jewish Quarter, revolved around an historic love story between Ali, an Egyptian army officer, and Laila, a young Jewish woman. The Muslim Brotherhood was portrayed as a greater threat to Egypt’s unity and security than the Jews, and the series was a roaring success.

In his last TV interview before his death in 2015, Ali Salem, the Egyptian writer, playwright and satirist, asserted – as he had done many times before – “Israel is not an enemy state, and poses no threat to Egypt’s national security. I hope Egypt’s political leadership will not be ashamed of the peace the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat established with Israel.”

If there has been a discernible shift in attitude towards Israel, at least among the intelligentsia, one figure in Egypt who deserves special credit is film-maker Amir Ramses.  His recent two-part documentary The Jews of Egypt and End of a Journey explores the rise and demise of Egypt’s Jewish communities between the late-19th and mid-20th centuries. Ramses filmed the series during the Mubarak and Morsi eras, and was in constant conflict with the official censors.  Yet last year, under the Sisi administration, Ramses’ films were screened in Egypt to critical acclaim.

Does all this presage the start of a genuine thaw in Egyptian-Israeli relations? Incidents at the 2016 Olympic games, when some Egyptian athletes refused – at least publicly – to acknowledge, or relate to, their Israeli counterparts, suggest that there is a long way to go in changing long-ingrained public antagonism.  But perhaps green shoots are just beginning to show.

The recent public execution of ‘political correctness’ in the U.S. and other Western countries had an unintended consequence: it has removed the curtain of pretense and hypocrisy. This, needless to say, is one of the key factors that could help solve some of the most critical political, economic, and faith-based issues of our time.

However, this positive outcome might not be immediately experienced or appreciated since assertive ignorance and crude communication dominate the public space. President-elect’s supporters had this to offer for post-election consensus building: ‘Donald Trump is the President; deal with!’ And his Transitional Team and selected Cabinet had nothing substantive to add. So, we must deal with this world-changing reality.

And this makes the unpacking of these two concepts critical: ‘conspiracy theory’ and its less known archenemy ‘conspiracy realism’. Both are relevant to understand and to function with the new diplomacy.

The Theorists’ Dilemma

Everything in life is not organized by clandestine cabals, secret societies, or sinister groups driven to achieve political, economic or religious objectives. And everything does not always have a wicked, illegal, or immoral motive. And yes there are people who always look at authorities with a relentless antipathy and distrust; people who are obsessed in finding the evil geniuses behind everything in ways that borderlines, if not indicates, mental disorder. The notorious killer cult leader, Charles Manson is an example.

Much of the issues in politics and economics are multidimensional and complex. As such, it is too difficult for the average people to wrap their minds around them. Especially during the seasons of heightened uncertainties due to wars, economic downfall and such, it is easy to seek meaning through professional conspiracy theorists. These influence-wielding individuals such as Alex Jones of InfoWars often have packaged explanations to everything.

They—seekers and providers—never change their minds or admit being wrong when new facts emerge and new evidences are unveiled. To them facts are nothing more than convenient covers- hence their offshoot or the creeping effect of fake news websites.

Undermined Reality

The perennial question that puzzled great minds throughout the ages (Is man innately good or innately evil?) has never been more relevant. Most of us may have strong opinions on this matter. As a Muslim, I believe that the human being is hard-wired with divine nobility—moral conscience—and is granted the free-will to disgrace him/herself to the lowest of the lows.

Is man not capable of connivingly conspire to immorally and illegally claim power beyond his rights and thus impose his will on others or commit sexual violence to please his lust? In that case, who is haplessly naïve- the one who believes that man never conspires to control and exploit or the one who thinks he does?

Before the WikiLeaks on government and corporate exploitation and misconduct, Snowden’s expose of intrusive ‘Big Brother’, any such claim would’ve been easily dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Throughout history man has lusted for exclusive advantage in order to control, manipulate or exploit. Yet, most people are still robotically inculcated to disassociate themselves with anything that suggests conspiracy; they are likely to resort to knee-jerk reaction in defense of status quo- whatever that may be. Those in power are often the main beneficiaries.

Politics of the Label

Not all conspiracy claims are driven by far-left or far-right nutty mobs that have an inventory of conspiratorial misgivings and fantasies.

Unless one is locked into state of absolute conformity to one’s own biases or denial, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the cleansing of Native Americans, slavery, colonialism, geopolitics, al-Qaida, ISIS, Shabaab and other such mortal enterprises would not have been possible without some form of conspiracy. And this should compel us to have a frank and sensible discourse on this ever-present human controversy.

Nowadays, any credible challenge to the official narrative of any serious issue, policy, or action is met with resistance from devout conformists or is shot-down by professionals who should be called the conspiracy police. This intellect-policing force needs not to present facts or establish any pattern of analytical discrepancies. All they need is to unleash cold-blooded ad hominem.

On the Receiving End

There are some who vehemently deny the notion that there is a synchronized effort to collectively demonize Muslims and other minority groups. The growing number of mainly far-right politicians who cunningly use “dog whistle politics” to give subtle marching orders. The political operatives, and well-funded media institutions with colorful personalities whose jobs are to incite religious intolerance and to whip people into crippling hysteria, therefore dependency.

In the U.S. and some parts of Europe, anti-Muslim partners foster uniformed propaganda led by hate-mongering ‘hipsters’. Their motto is: “All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are.” They insist that their motive is neither racist nor anti-Islamic. However, their thinly disguised racism falls apart as soon as one replaces “Muslims” with Jews, and “terrorists” with financial scammers. Was the latter not the malicious pretext that led to the holocaust?

In the current trend, Muslims are so demonized that individuals and mosques could be implicated arbitrarily and be condemned in the court of public opinion. And since neither media nor the law-enforcement is pressed to present evidence or establish clear trend before accusing any Muslim person or institution, whatever they present is often considered “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Institutional Racism

In the spirit of conspiracy realism and trying out the new diplomacy, let me spread these cards on the table. There are mainly two phenomena that support the notion that Muslims are in political and economic crosshairs: First, geographical areas in which terrorists operate are almost always resource rich or are geopolitically important. Second, though terrorism presents real indiscriminate threat, all countries that succumb to political pressures to make counter-terrorism their principle domestic and foreign policies almost always grow more insecure. Are these random acts of nature or human intervention?

Against that backdrop, the President-elect and his selected Cabinet raise a red flag; especially with regard to their naïve world view and reliance on ‘security experts’ who are blinded by their hate of Islam and Muslims. To what extent are they going to abuse the authority vested in them is open for debate.

The known factor is that governments strategically keep society fearful, senseless, and disoriented in order to create sense of dependency or pass controversial policies or decrees? This is not something that only dictators such as el-Sisi of Egypt would do. Certain intelligence and law enforcement agencies within democratic states such the U.S. have historically fabricated and staged fearful dramas in order to achieve specific political objectives.

Like many Muslims across U.S. and Europe, when some Somali-American activists complained of being discriminatively targeted in the Twin Cities, they were swiftly dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists’, until recently when a staff whistleblower exposed that TSA was indeed discriminating and “treating Somalis as a community of suspects.

Positive Change Is Coming

Much of humanity, especially those who are digitally connected, is in state of trauma due to wars, economic uncertainty and excessive negativity.

Watching the Aleppo holocaust in real time and the empty political rhetoric of those who could end that horrific misery but would not act has exposed humanity’s corroding collective conscience. Mindful or not, most of humanity—those who are connected to the rest of the world—are suffering from collective trauma of different levels. Still we should not allow that to push us into a state of hopelessness where all we can sense are bloody spooks moving in the blinding darkness. The last thing humanity needs is reckless leaders to make situations more volatile.

Collective Responsibility of Objective Scrutiny

Anyone who accepts the premise that all political initiatives are the works of one interest group or another can comfortably accept the suspicion that his counterpart is engaging in a self-serving conspiracy; even if the counterpart were to deny.

A healthy dose of skepticism is good so long as one maintains a balance and not goes off the rails with it. Runaway skepticism leads to a dangerous state of mind- uncompromising cynicism. It is in that psychological state of profound fatalism where conspiracy theories and theorists thrive.

There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. The former is the obligation and moral duty of every professional journalist, law enforcement, and public official whereas the latter is an endless emotional wave of doubt, distrust, and pessimism.

In the course of the next four years, institutional attempts to derail or repress genuine discourse and debate on fault-line issues that could add fuel to a global burning fire is very likely. Here is where the non-conglomerate media could assume heroic roles. They should be loyal to the public and not the corporate interest or those in power.

Let us face it, it is not by sheer coincidence that man often performs his very best on stages and under spotlights, and his most vile in darkness or behind veils of secrecy. Keep the lights bright.

By Mitchell Blatt*

The National Enquirer is the magazine Americans ordinarily look at in the checkout line for some light humor about how Bill Cosby had his son murdered or how the people in Hollywood you already knew were gay are gay, but this year the rack-filler really went all in for Trump.

During the GOP primary, it attacked all of Trump’s rivals, publishing Trump opposition research, publishing pictures of Bush’s daughter, accusing Ted Cruz of having multiple affairs (in a story that has since then never been picked up by journalists), and even randomly linking Cruz’s father to JFK’s assassination in a defamation that Trump repeated on the campaign trail.

We also learned that in 2015 Hillary only had six months to live and that she was going to jail.

But now that David Pecker’s long-time friend is elected, it’s not time to stop. No, National Enquirer must publish an article written by McCarthy’s ghost accusing “55” CIA employees of being “Muslims Spies in Obama’s CIA.”

We have known for a long-time, from such impeccable sources as Michelle Bachmann and Donald Trump that Obama has surrounded himself with Muslim Brotherhood terrorist advisors and that Obama himself is a Muslim, but now we see the problem is especially bad in the CIA. One wonders if that is because of the CIA’s conclusion that Russia hacked into Democratic Party and Republican Party digital accounts and leaked emails to Wikileaks in order to try to help Trump win?

But if that’s the case, then it’s not just limited to the CIA. There must be “Muslim spies” in the FBI, too, because the FBI concurred that Russia hacked the Democrats, and if this report by the Washington Post is true, they even agreed about Russia’s intent! Trump must work hard to clean out the “Muslim spies” everywhere they lurk. I get the feeling there will be more and more “Muslim spies” the longer his term drags on.

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

By Kalinga Seneviratne

With mounting demonstrations in support of Rohingyas in fellow ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) Muslim majority countries Malaysia and Indonesia, Myanmar’s de-facto leader and Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi made an astute move to summon Foreign Ministers of ASEAN for a one-day “retreat” to Yangoon on December 19 to brief them on the situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine State where most Rohingyas live.

A first of its kind for ASEAN where a member country has summoned ministers to discuss an internal affairs, yet, it demonstrated that Suu Kyi is no hostage to western human rights groups who supported her long campaign to bring “democracy” to Myanmar.

The Myanmar government has been irked by the behaviour of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak after he participated in a protest rally in support of Rohingyas in Kuala Lumpur recently and appeared to be fuelling increasing public anger about alleged human rights violations against a fellow Muslim community in the region. Some 56,000 Rohingya refugees are believed to be living in Malaysia.

Many of Razak’s critics in Malaysia and in the region have accused him of using the Rohingyas to deflect corruption allegations against him in Malaysia and also waning support for his party among grassroots Malay Muslims.

Rohingyas are a Muslim minority of Bengali origin who have been living mainly in the northern Rakhine State in Buddhist majority Myanmar for generations. But they are not recognized as citizens by Myanmar nor are they recognized as Bengalis by Bangladesh. Recently, Muslim majority Bangladesh closed its border to Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar.

For years, Buddhists in Myanmar have viewed the Rohingyas as a threat since they are among the poorest in the country, and susceptible to exploitation by foreign jihadi groups.

The latest flare up started on October 9 when Muslim militants with suspected links to Islamists overseas are believed to be behind attacks on security posts near Myanmar’s border with Bangladesh, in the north of Rakhine State that killed nine police officers. Since then there has been a heavy crackdown against the Muslim minority in the region with at least 86 people killed and an estimated 27,000 Rohingyas have fled to Bangladesh according to human rights groups.

Thus Rohingyas have become the latest rallying point for western and regional human rights groups and Muslim activists as well as the international media, especially Al Jazeera. Rohingyas have also become a lucrative new source of income for human traffickers and asylum lawyers.

On the eve of the ASEAN foreign ministers’ retreat in Yangoon, Amnesty International, which campaigned for long for Suu Kyi’s release during the military regime, released a report accusing her government of a campaign against the Rohingyas.

“While the military is directly responsible for the violations, Aung San Suu Kyi has failed to live up to both her political and moral responsibility to try to stop and condemn what is unfolding in Rakhine State,” Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International‘s director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, said in a statement.

But, many in the region see things differently. Thailand’s Nation newspaper published a report from Deutsche Press-Agentur (dpa) on December 16 that referred to an analysis of the International Crisis Group (ICG) with headquarters in Brussels. ICG has warned Myanmar that “a well-organised, apparently well-funded group” has been behind the recent attacks on the armed forces in Myanmar.

ICG says: “The insurgent group, which refers to itself as Harakah al-Yaqin (Faith Movement, HaY), is led by a committee of Rohingya émigrés in Saudi Arabia and is commanded on the ground by Rohingya with international training and experience in modern guerrilla war tactics. It benefits from the legitimacy provided by local and international fatwas (religious judicial opinions) in support of its cause and enjoys considerable sympathy and backing from Muslims in northern Rakhine State, including several hundred locally trained recruits.”

While human rights groups working with Rohingyas on the ground such as Burma Human Rights Network has rejected the allegations, Priscilla Clapp, a retired U.S. diplomat who was the chargé d’affaires at the American Embassy in Myanmar from 1999 to 2002, has in an interview with Radio Free Asia (RFA) questioned the veracity of the accusations by outside nongovernmental organizations and others. She told RFA’s Myanmar Service on December 12 that those who support such charges “don’t known what the situation is”.

“They don’t understand the language, and people make things up,” she said. “They make things up just to spread rumors.” Myanmar government has also often accused international media of spreading “fabricated” news stories.

During the retreat, which was closed to the media although about 100 journalists have arrived at the venue, Suu Kyi is believed to have briefed the foreign ministers about the ground situation.

In a statement released to the media after the retreat, the Myanmar leader reiterated her government’s commitment to resolving what she termed “complex issues” with regards to the Rohingyas and argued that they need time and space to resolve it.

In a direct reference to those from outside the region who want to internationalise the issue, the statement said that it would be resolved among “ASEAN family members through peaceful and friendly consultations”.

In a commentary in Thailand’s The Nation newspaper, regional analyst Kavi Chongkittavorn argues that Suu Kyi has displayed her “political instincts and diplomatic finesse” to engage ASEAN where she has overall control of the process. “As such, she wanted to keep this sensitive issue within the region,” he noted.

Chongkittavorn is critical of the role of Malaysian Foreign Minsiter Anifah Aman who proposed ASEAN coordinating humanitarian aid and setting up an independent expert group to investigate conditions there. “It was unlikely these proposals would receive backing from Suu Kyi or other ASEAN members,” he argues.

“Kudos must also go to Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, who has served as an honest broker,” he notes. “Jakarta has politely declined to collaborate with Malaysia’s call to show solidarity as the world’s largest Muslim country, knowing full well that it could polarise ASEAN. Her position was clear that ASEAN should not get involved in the region unless Myanmar invites the group to help.”

Immediately after the retreat, Marsudi visited Bangladesh to argue for more compassionate attitude towards Rohingyas crossing the border to Bangladesh. She asserted that the solution to the crisis has to come from the source country and the region need to support whatever initiatives Myanmar government is taking to ensure inclusive development in Rakhine state.

Meanwhile, Myanmar’s Buddhist neighbour Thailand has offered $200,000 at the retreat to help displaced people in Rakhine state and intensified cooperation with Myanmar authorities to apprehend several local human traffickers and their trawlers operating near coastal towns in the Andaman Sea, disrupting the flow of Rohingya from both Myanmar and Bangladesh that is fuelling the international outcry.

“As Myanmar moves forward with economic and democratic development, there are high hopes the ongoing peace process will proceed to end the half-century of fighting with ethnic armed groups,” argues Chongkittavorn. “This prospect of peace would enable more refugees to return home.”

This article is the 11th in a series of joint productions of Lotus News Features and IDN-InDepthNews, flagship of the International Press Syndicate.

By Pradeep Singh Chhonkar