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

Iraq: Islamic State Executed Civilians In Village Uprising, Says HRW

0
0

The Islamic State, also known as ISIS, summarily executed at least 13 people including two boys following a village uprising in October 2016, Human Rights Watch said today. The executions, which are war crimes, took place in the neighboring villages of al-Hud and al-Lazzagah, 50 kilometers south of Mosul, following local attempts to expel ISIS fighters who controlled the villages.

Iraqi security forces should appropriately investigate incidents of alleged war crimes so that those responsible, if in government custody, can be fairly prosecuted, Human Rights Watch said.

“ISIS responded to the village uprising by unlawfully executing people captured in the uprising and civilians who weren’t involved,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Security forces who capture ISIS fighters should properly investigate their participation in alleged war crimes like these.”

ISIS captured al-Hud and al-Lazzagah on June 10, 2014. Under ISIS, villagers said they lived in constant fear of punishment, including death, for activities like smoking or using a cell phone. Human Rights Watch spoke to seven residents of the villages, who said that on the morning of October 17, as Iraqi security forces were closing in, about 30 villagers in al-Lazzagah and 15 in al-Hud attacked ISIS forces to clear them from their villages, killing 19 ISIS fighters.

One participant in the uprising, “Ahmed,” 37, an oil worker from al-Lazzagah, told Human Rights Watch that his cousin “Hussein” came to his home along with three men earlier that morning to discuss the planned attack. While Hussein went home to get a gun, Ahmed and the others walked outside. Four ISIS fighters stopped Hussein about 200 meters from Ahmed’s home and started questioning him, and then shot and wounded him. Ahmed said that he and the three others opened fire on the four fighters, killing them.

“Ammar,” 54, an oil worker from al-Lazzagah, said that four men gathered at his house that morning to discuss targeting ISIS fighters from the windows of their homes. The group left at about 11:30 a.m. As an unarmed member, “Mahmoud,” 19, walked toward his home, an ISIS fighter on the street stopped and shot him unprovoked. Ammar said he then pulled out his concealed gun and shot the fighter. Two ISIS fighters ran over to remove the fighter’s body but the villagers opened fire on them, wounding one. Ammar was later wounded in the clashes in another part of the village.

Others involved in the uprising deployed in a cluster of about 10 homes near the main road entering the villages, and fired on incoming ISIS military vehicles. ISIS fighters stormed the houses, most of which were abandoned. A female neighbor said she saw ISIS fighters execute “Faris,” 45, outside his home among the cluster of houses, after they found an Iraqi flag in his possession. He was unarmed and in their custody when they shot him, the neighbor said. Several villagers also saw ISIS fighters execute “Youssef,” another unarmed man they had taken into custody. They found his and Faris’ bodies lying outside. Two villagers involved in the uprising said that Faris and Youssef were not involved in the attack, though their execution would have been unlawful in any case.

The villagers who had fired on ISIS fighters in al-Hud that morning hid in different homes after running out of ammunition. At about 3:30 p.m. more ISIS fighters arrived in al-Hud and started searching for the attackers. Five ISIS fighters went to the home of “Hassan,” 40, a laborer, searched it and took away his brother “Karim,” 33, a former Iraqi soldier who Hassan said participated in the attacks. They also took their neighbor “Hakim.” Hassan said he watched the ISIS fighters execute both men in the middle of the street about 300 meters from his home. Their bodies remained there until the next morning because it was too dangerous to retrieve them.


Bulgaria: Prosecutors Probe Arms Company Linked To Syria

0
0

By Mariya Cheresheva

Prosecutors in Gorna Oryahovitsa, northern Bulgaria, have launched a probe into a local arms company whose products have reportedly been found in former rebel-controlled areas of Aleppo in Syria.

The probe, announced on Thursday, follows an investigation published by the newspaper Trud in December, which revealed that some arms found by Russian troops in eastern Aleppo were made by Arcus, a company located in Lyaskovets, in northern Bulgaria.

The aim of the probe is to identify whether the company has a license to trade in arms, the prosecution explained.

Ivan Gromov, commander of de-mining group in Aleppo, told Russian TV on Wednesday that the group had found “huge amounts” of arms produced in Germany, Bulgaria and the US.

Among them were various types of shells, hand grenades, grenade launchers and other weapons – enough for “a whole battalion”, Gromov said.

Maria Zaharova, from the Russian foreign ministry, on Tuesday said “questions have been raised in Moscow” about the arms produced in Bulgaria and with an expired Russian licence.

Bulgarian Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov dismissed the Russian claims on Thursday, saying that Bulgaria strictly followed international arms trading standards and had not exported any arms to Syria since the beginning of the conflict in 2011.

“I will not accept accusations from a country which is responsible for civilian victims in Aleppo,” Mitov told private broadcaster BTV, referring to Russian military support for the Syrian government offensive in the city.

He added that Russia is not a party to the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and that “such a country cannot moralize against Bulgaria”.

A recent investigation by BIRN and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, OCCRP, revealed that since 2012, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia and Romania had agreed exports of weapons and ammunition worth at least 1.2 billion euros to four countries supporting Syria’s armed opposition.

The bulk of the deals, totalling 829 million euros, were made with Saudi Arabia.

The exporting countries granted the licences despite evidence that many weapons were being diverted to Syria, ending up with opposition as well as Islamist groups accused of atrocities.

EU members and countries seeking to join the EU are obliged to carry out eight different checks before agreeing arms export licences.

The checks include assessing the risk that sold weapons could be diverted to or end up in the hands of terrorist groups.

Bulgaria’s economy minister in August admitted that some weapons from the country may have ended up in the hands of fighters in Syria and Iraq, but insisted that the state was not responsible for this.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/bulgarian-arms-producer-investigated-for-arms-found-in-aleppo-12-29-2016#sthash.ENF4CocH.dpuf

Global Threat Forecast 2017 – Analysis

0
0

In 2017, the so-called Islamic State (IS) will decentralise posing a pre-eminent terrorist threat. To deter the international community against continued intervention in its heartland IS will stage attacks worldwide.

By Rohan Gunaratna*

Four significant developments will characterise the global threat landscape in 2017. First, it is likely that the so-called Islamic State (IS) will transform from a caliphate-building entity into a global terrorist movement. In a manner similar to Al Qaeda (AQ) that had dispersed from its Afghanistan-Pakistan core in 2001-2002 to conflict zones worldwide, IS will refocus on consolidating the distant wilayats (provinces) to serve as bastions of its power.

Second, death of either the IS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi or AQ leader Ayman al Zawahiri, may lead to collaboration or possible unification of the most powerful terrorist groups. In this regard, the discord between IS and AQ is a leadership dispute and not ideological in nature. Third, IS, AQ and their associates will compensate for their losses in the physical space by expanding further into cyber space. Despite government and technology firms collaborating to monitor the cyber space, the battle-space of threat groups in the virtual communities will continue to operate and grow.

The Context

There is a fourth significant development which has emerged in response to IS. This is the rise of far-right, ethno-nationalist, anti-Islamist populist movements, particularly in the US and Europe. The response of governments and their societies to these movements within their countries and ethno-nationalist challenges in the Middle East and elsewhere will determine the threat levels in the future.

Insurgency, terrorism and extremism will continue to characterise the international security landscape in 2017, exacerbated by the campaigns of the populist far-right movements. In the backdrop of intermittent threats and attacks, the new US leader Donald Trump is seeking to expand the coalition to include other partners to dismantle IS and AQ and decapitate their leaders.

Trump’s target-centric approach of eliminating the enemy and its infrastructure will replace Obama’s population-centric approach of engaging and empowering communities whilst adopting militarised responses. In the scenario that Trump and Vladimir Putin collaborate, the threat groups will suffer further loss of territory and operational capabilities.

However, the growing pool of supporters and sympathisers will replenish the losses allowing groups such as IS to fight back and recover. IS will transform into an operation-based movement. With the renewed global focus to destroy its infrastructure in Iraq and Syria, the goal of forming a caliphate will linger and live on in the cyber space and resonate among IS followers. Some will hark back at its brief history and others will strive to recreate it.

Contrary to popular opinion, IS will remain a threat as long as its ideology lives on in the cyber and physical space. IS will also continue to supplant AQ’s influence operationally and ideologically. IS, AQ and their associated groups are likely to remain potent global actors in the domain of violence and extremism. The groups will frame the fight as a response to attacks against Islam and Muslims with their apocalyptic vision in mind.

Decentralisation of Threat

IS will compensate for the loss of territory by expanding horizontally and strengthening its existing wilayats (provinces) while declaring new ones. The wilayats are considered the “Pillars of the Caliphate” by the self-declared caliph Baghdadi and he referred to Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, the Philippines, Somalia and West Africa as some of the wilayats in November 2016.

The distant wilayats will serve as bastions of IS power and future launching pads to attack enemies. However, the regional wilayats in Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan support the neighbouring IS structures. The shifting focus of IS towards its wilayats became evident when Baghdadi urged supporters of the caliphate to migrate to Libya instead of traveling to Iraq and Syria. However, the group has now been defeated and ousted from Sirte in Libya as well.

In a further demonstration of the emerging decentralised threat, his message was preceded by his associates urging supporters of the caliphate to migrate to IS wilayats and enclaves. For Southeast Asian fighters, the regional hub is in Mindanao in southern Philippines.

The global pool of foreign fighters with expertise and experience are likely to gravitate to wilayats, home countries and other countries with familial links. In addition to the persistent IS threat in Muslim minority and majority countries, the dispersal of the IS core will threaten coalitions fighting IS. Directly and through proxies, IS will target coalition equities in the Iraqi and Syrian theatre and other countries.

Multiple Coalitions Against IS

In 2015 to 2016, multiple coalitions targeting IS contributed to the group’s loss of territory. As such, with Russian airstrikes, Syrian ground forces took Palmyra in March 2016 and US-supported Kurdish and Arab groups attacked Raqqa, the de facto capital of IS in November 2016. US-supported Iraqi and Kurdish forces attacked Mosul in October 2016.

Both Raqqa and Mosul were used by the external operations wing of IS to plan, prepare and execute attacks. In his speech in November 2016, Baghdadi called for “attack after attack” in Saudi Arabia; he also urged his fighters and supporters to “unleash the fire of their anger” towards Turkey. The bomb blast and suicide bombing outside a soccer stadium in December 2016 in Istanbul that killed 29 and injured 166 is a forecast of what IS will unleash in Istanbul and elsewhere.

The overall terrorism threat landscape is unlikely to change as the ground situation in Syria will not alter dramatically in the short term. Contrary to assessments by some, IS will survive as long as the civil war persists in Syria and will remain a growing threat to the west and other countries confronting IS.

*Rohan Gunaratna is Professor of Security Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), at the Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. He is Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, Singapore.

India’s Foremost 2017 Foreign Policy Challenge: China-Pakistan-Russia Troika – Analysis

0
0

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

The China-Pakistan-Russia Troika having emerged on the South Asian geopolitical scene now with undisguised contours and political signalling emerges as India’s foremost foreign policy challenge in 2017.

The China-Pakistan Axis has been in existence from 1963 onwards but the addition of Russia to the China-Pakistan Axis leading to its emergence as the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika is a phenomenon of recent vintage.

Pakistan with the prospects of the drawdown of United States embedment in Afghanistan redoubled its efforts to develop a close relationship with Russia. Russia on the other hand with no logical game-changing strategic end-game moved closer to Pakistan more out of pique as a rebound to India reinforcing its strategic partnership with the United States.

China too seems to have prevailed heavily on Russia to reverse its gears in South Asia and tilt towards the Chinese protégé Pakistan. This move when viewed in totality suggests an effort by China and Pakistan in concert with Russia to emerge as a geopolitical game-changer in South Asia.

China-Pakistan –Russia Troika contours commenced unfolding in 2014 or so, with the emergence of strategic convergences on Afghanistan between these three nations on Afghanistan despite their inherent self-contradictions as highlighted in my SAAG Paper No.5961 dated 29 June 2015.

This month the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika was in full operation when it met in Moscow to discuss Afghanistan’s instability, in their perceptions. Oddly enough, Afghanistan as the central focus of the Troika Meet in Moscow was not invited. Afghanistan has strongly protested at this exclusion. Analytically, the China-Pakistan-Russia’s uninvited meddling in Afghanistan’s internal affairs is ominous and India needs to take a note of it. This amounts to the Troika’s first political intervention in Afghanistan, and that too with Russia in tow. It could be a precursor to more assertive interventions in Afghanistan.

The China-Pakistan-Russia Troika seems to have come to stay as a strategic grouping as no indicators exist to suggest that Russia’s addition to the China-Pakistan Axis is only a passing phenomenon.

If that be so then the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika presents the foremost foreign policy challenge to the Indian foreign policy establishment in 2017. Indian diplomacy does not possess any leverage to undo this Troika and hence the next best option is that India indulges in serious diplomacy to ensure that the impact of this Troika on India’s foreign policy interests and influence is limited.

The impact of China-Pakistan-Russia Troika on India’s foreign policy and India’s national security interests in the regional and global context does not appear to be significant. On the other hand, India has to be on a watch-out on its South Asian neighbourhood where at least China and Pakistan carrying the advantage of Russia in tow, would attempt to muscle-in on the foreign policy successes that India has gained under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka need heightened attention by Indian diplomacy. Nepal has to be prevailed upon that it is in the best interests of Nepal to stop playing the ‘China Card’ against India. India does possess leverages over Nepal which China cannot match.

Afghanistan as the special target of the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika impinges heavily on India’s legitimate security interests in that country, where India has invested significantly in its national reconstruction and nation-building. India and Afghanistan jointly will have a big task in off-setting the Troika’s, obviously aimed at edging out India from Afghanistan.

The China-Pakistan-Russia Troika cannot be limited to a discussion only as a challenge to Indian diplomacy but needs analysis in terms of its geopolitical and strategic impact on India and India’s national security interests.

Viewing South Asia first, the most striking impact is that Russia which had earlier on ceased to be the countervailing power for India now can no longer be viewed by India even as an ‘honest power broker’ in mediation of South Asian disputes. Russia now emerges as the second intrusive power in South Asia allied to China and in pursuance of Chinese interests in South Asia. Pakistan by default emerges as the greater beneficiary in South Asia.

In the Middle East, the China-Pakistan Axis was not a major strategic actor. In the Middle East in 2017, Russia emerges with even a greater power profile than the United States. However, whether transference of Russian gains in the region to the China-Pakistan Axis is concerned materialises is debatable.

Some gains could possibly accrue to Pakistan where with the emergence of the recent Russia-Turkey-Iran meets in relation to Syria may prompt Russia to persuade Iran to shrink away from the India-Iran-Afghanistan Trilateral on the Chah Bahar Agreement signed some months ago. Moreso, when viewed in the context of Russia evincing keenness to participate in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor centring on Gwadar.

In South East Asia it is difficult to visualise that the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika would have any serious impact on India’s national interests and foreign policy relationships.

East Asia also presents a similar picture as above. However, in this region, the India-Japan Special Strategic Partnership and the India-Vietnam Strategic Partnership along with South Korea is a strong front for the China-Russia strategic nexus. Pakistan is a non-entity in regional power dynamics in this region.

Central Asia presents the biggest political and diplomatic challenge to India in the context of the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika. Central Asia comprises the erstwhile ‘republics’ of the Former Soviet Union and where even today Russia enjoys considerable political influence. China enjoys great economic influence in the region. Pakistan will play the ‘Islamic Card’ with the countries of the region. With all three put together, the China-Pakistan-Russia Troika will limit India’s efforts to tap the Central Asian energy markets, expanding Indian trade links and widening of Indian political influence.

India however can exercise some options in Central Asia with skilful diplomacy and raising the calibre of her diplomats posted in the region.

Concluding, two major conclusions that arise from the foregoing analysis are as follows and whose relevance will endure till India girds up her potential to strategically stand strongly and singly, alone:

  • India must delink itself from organisations dominated by China and Russia, like Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS. India must cease to be part of what are ostensibly countervailing groupings against the United States and could possibly end-up as confrontationist groupings against the United States. This has been constantly been espoused in my past writings. It is not in the interest of India.
  • India’s best interests lie in reinforcing the US-India Strategic Partnership to greater heights. United States could possibly add impetus in this direction under the forthcoming Tump Presidency.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

The Reason The Fed Is Raising Rates, And Why It Won’t Work – OpEd

0
0

Why is the Fed creating incentives for US corporations to destroy themselves? Why is the Fed pushing insurance companies and retirement funds into bankruptcy?  Why is the Fed raising interest rates when inflation is still well below its 2 percent target?

Things are not always what they seem. In theory, the Fed’s low interest rates are supposed to have a positive impact on the economy by spurring a credit expansion. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Bank lending has remained stubbornly subdued throughout the post-crisis period. But what hasn’t remained subdued is corporate borrowing (via the bond market) which has exceeded all previous records increasing the probability of massive corporate defaults sometime in the next two years. Here’s a good summary of what’s going on from an article in Fortune titled “Corporate America is Drowning in Debt”:

“A good portion of Corporate America may have a serious debt problem. According to a report released Friday from S&P Global Ratings, the bottom 99% of corporations, when it comes to the amount of cash they have, are increasingly showing worrying levels of debt.

Studying S&P’s universe of more than 2,000 nonfinancial corporations, S&P’s researchers found that corporate issuers of debt had on hand a record $1.84 trillion in cash. But that statistic doesn’t tell us very much about the health of individual companies, because it appears cash is more concentrated at the top than ever. The top 1% of corporate cash holders…have slightly more than half of the total cash pile of Corporate America….

If you remove the top 25 cash holders, you’ll find that for most of Corporate America, cash on hand is declining even as these companies rack up more and more debt at historic rates. The bottom 99% of corporate borrowers have just $900 billion in cash on hand to back up $6 trillion in debt. “This resulted in a cash-to-debt ratio of 12%—the lowest recorded over the past decade, including the years preceding the Great Recession,” the report reads.” …

One obvious reason for Corporate America’s debt binge is low interest rates. With investors willing to lend companies money for so little in return, it makes sense that firms would turn to debt to finance things like share repurchases rather than, for instance, bringing cash earned from overseas, which would then be taxed at a high rate.

….”Given the record levels of speculative-grade debt issuance in recent years,” the report reads, “we believe corporate default rates could increase over the next few years.” (“Corporate America Is Drowning in Debt“, Fortune)

Repeat: The vast majority of US corporations are worse off now than they were in “the years preceding the Great Recession.” And the reason they’re worse off now is because of  low interest rates. The Fed’s low rates create lethal incentives for CEO’s to pile on the debt which puts their companies at greater risk of default.  Corporations are borrowing tons of money from investors in the bond market, which they are distributing to their shareholders rather than using to improve productivity or increase employment. They are also recycling two-thirds of earnings into stock buybacks which is going to dramatically impact their future competitiveness.  Here’s a blurb from an article in USA Today that sums it all up:

“Capital spending fell 6.2% at an annual rate in the first quarter following a 2.1% drop late last year, its worst such stretch since 2009 and a big reason the economy nearly stalled in that period, Commerce Department data shows.

Business outlays were sluggish throughout 2015, rising 2.8% compared to an average 4.5% clip during the seven-year-old recovery. …Business spending typically makes up 12.5% of economic activity but has an outsized impact on the economy and stock market. Purchases of equipment and software, and the construction and renovation of buildings, create thousands of jobs for manufacturers. And such investment makes up nearly 30% of the sales of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies, says David Bianco, Deutsche Bank’s chief U.S. equity strategist….

Instead, public companies are plowing their large cash reserves into stock buybacks and dividends despite low borrowing costs.” (“Business investment is in a slump and its hurting the economy”, USA Today)

Stock buybacks– which were illegal before the Reagan administration — are a deceptive form of financial circlejerk that distort prices, create bubbles and lead to crisis. The reason the Fed ignores these issues because it sees profitmaking as a higher priority than ensuring the safety of the system. Go figure?

Since Donald Trump has been elected, the buyback frenzy has gained momentum mainly because he’s promised a one-time “repatriation holiday” for tax dodging US corporations who will be allowed to bring upwards of $1 trillion back to the US at a meager 10% corporate tax rate. Market analysts do not expect the money to go into production, hiring or infrastructure development, but into more buybacks that will send stocks higher into the stratosphere. Here’s the story from the WSJ:

“Corporate stock repurchases are on the upswing once again, wrong-footing skeptics who predicted 2016 would mark the beginning of the end of a postcrisis spending spree. Through Dec. 16, companies this month have stepped up their buybacks by nearly two-thirds over the same period last year, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc….

The outlook for buybacks, like so much else in financial markets, has been upended by the Nov. 8 election of Donald Trump as president. After repurchases hit a record in 2015, they had slowed this year. Many analysts predict they will decline next year, reflecting soft corporate-earnings growth and stretched stock valuations. But the election surprise has raised the prospect that tax cuts will put large sums in corporate coffers, which in turn will be deployed largely in repurchases. That money potentially could include the profits that U.S. companies stand to bring back from overseas under a widely expected repatriation-tax holiday.

Goldman Sachs forecast that S&P 500 companies will repatriate $200 billion of their $1 trillion in cash held overseas in 2017 and that $150 billion of those funds will be spent on share repurchases. That could provide further support for major U.S. stock indexes that have hit fresh highs this month.”

(“Surging Buybacks Say Stock Boom Isn’t Over“, Wall Street Journal)

So according to G-Sax, 75% of all the dough returning from overseas is going go into buybacks that will pump up the equities bubble (that Trump criticized before he was elected) into the biggest colossus of all time.  Is that the change that Trump backers were hoping for?

Here’s more from the same article:

“Repurchases have been a major contributor to the nearly eight-year stock rally. From the start of 2009 to the end of September 2016, companies in the S&P 500 spent more than $3.24 trillion repurchasing shares, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.

Both companies and investors often applaud share repurchases because the practice drives up earnings per share and often boosts stock prices.” (WSJ)

Ultimately, the buck stops with the Fed, that’s where the real blame lies. The Fed created the incentives for this destructive behavior and they are the primary regulator of the entire financial system. They could stop this nonsense with just one appearance before Congress, but they choose not to. They’d rather keep the real economy in a permanent coma and blow up the financial system than lift a finger to stop Wall Street’s reckless and relentless looting spree.

We know that the low rates have been disastrous for pension funds, insurance companies and Mom and Pop’s retirement savings which have shriveled to nothing since the recession ended in 2009. We also know that–during that same period– “97% of all GDP-income gains went to the wealthiest 1% households” which has widened inequality to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. The question is: Why would the Fed change its policy now that all the money is flowing exactly where the Fed wants it to flow, upwards?

Is the Fed really worried about inflation, is that it?

Not at all. All the talk about inflation is pure bunkum and the Fed knows it. According to the Wall Street Journal:

“The central bank’s preferred gauge of inflation, the personal-consumption expenditures price index, was up 1.4% in November from a year earlier, data showed Thursday. Another measure, the consumer-price index, was up 1.7% from a year earlier in November….

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said this month that there are signs wage inflation is picking up. Yet the nonfarm jobs report this month showed average hourly earnings for private-sector workers declined 0.1% in November….

One other factor that may contain the risk of inflation is the U.S. dollar, which rose to a 14-year high against a basket of its main rivals earlier this week. A higher dollar reduces the cost of imported goods that may keep a lid on inflation, potentially delaying the Fed’s goal to push up inflation to its 2% target.” (“The Markets Say Inflation Is Coming. The Data Show It Isn’t True“, Wall Street Journal)

Get the picture? Even using the Fed’s own methodology (“preferred gauge”) inflation is still below the 2% target. It’s just not a problem nor will it be as long as the Fed keeps the economy in this Central Bank-induced Depression. Because during a depression, the demand for credit stays weak, and when the demand for credit stays weak, the price of money remains low. It’s just supply and demand.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is this: Is the economy still in the crapper or has activity really started to pick up like Fed Chairman Janet Yellen keeps saying? Here’s how the Wall Street Journal answers that question:

“Stock prices may have soared since the November election, but the U.S. economy is ending 2016 on an anemic note. Measures of economic vitality including income growth, consumer spending and inflation weakened last month following a short-lived spurt.

Household spending rose just 0.2% in November from the month before, a slowdown in growth from the previous two months, while incomes flatlined, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Inflation readings, which had perked up, didn’t budge last month, and demand for factory-made goods remained soft. For now, that leaves the U.S. economy in the middling trajectory that has marked the seven-year expansion.

“Underlying support for the consumer sector remains fragile at best,” said Lindsey Piegza, economist at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. “The reality the consumer is facing at this point is still modest wage gains and a continued loss of momentum in income growth.”

Forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimates the economy is growing at a 1.7% rate in the final three months of 2016. Federal Reserve policy makers expect the economy to grow 1.9% this year and 2.1% next year, a forecast the central bank has barely changed since the election of Donald Trump.

About two-thirds of total U.S. output goes toward domestic consumer spending. Solid household outlays during the summer helped propel economic growth to a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, the best quarterly increase in two years, according to revised data released Thursday. But income growth has softened: Wage and salary income rose 3.5% in November from a year earlier, the slowest year-over-year gain since December 2013.

Without stronger support from consumers and more investment by businesses, third-quarter growth momentum could wane.”  (“U.S. Economy Approaches Year’s End on Lackluster Note“, Wall Street Journal)

Yellen points to employment, consumer spending and “firming” inflation as signs that the recovery is strengthening, but as the article points out,  it’s all baloney. There’s no recovery.  Sure, there’s been a slight uptick in optimism because of Trump’s promise to spend a lot of money to fire up GDP, but most of those promises will never materialize, which means that growth will remain in the 2% doldrums for the foreseeable future.

But if the Fed is not raising rates to curb rising inflation or to prevent the economy from overheating, then what the heck is it doing?

Ahh, that’s where it gets interesting.

The Fed is raising rates because there is now widespread agreement that keeping rates low for a long period of time does serious damage to the financial infrastructure. That’s one reason, but it doesn’t fully explain what’s really going on. On a more practical level, the Fed is raising rates because of the banks. That’s right, it’s another handout to the big Wall Street behemoths. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

“Big U.S. banks have rallied in recent months amid rising interest rates but, if the Fed carries out its plans, there is room for them to keep rallying….

For American banks, a pie-in-the-sky scenario has just moved closer to reality. While struggling with ultralow interest rates, major banks have also been publishing regular updates on how well they would do if interest rates suddenly surged upward….Bank of America also says a 1-percentage-point rise in short-term rates would add $3.29 billion….a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests an incremental $2.9 billion of extra pretax income in 2017, or 11.5% of the bank’s expected 2016 pretax profit…

With shares up 45% since the end of September, Bank of America is no longer cheap. But it isn’t expensive either… Especially if the Fed moves forward with more rate increases, there is room to go higher.” (“Banks’ Interest-Rate Dreams Coming True“, Wall Street Journal)

So higher rates and a steeper yield-curve mean heftier profits and higher stock prices, which is why the financials have been the hottest sector for the last six weeks.

Bottom line: The Fed’s rate hike has nothing to do with employment, growth, productivity, the state of the economy or inflation. It’s all about the banks.

And that’s why the plan is doomed from the get-go, because raising rates during a Depression doesn’t help to end the slump. It just makes matters worse.

Brexit: Pakistanization Finally Comes Home – OpEd

0
0

Ever since the end of the WWI, and especially since the end of the WWII, the UK’s official foreign policy line was nearly always the same, imperial – partition and division. Divide/atomise and rule (divide at impere)! Whether it was Asia, Latin America, Africa, Ukraine, Balkans or the Middle East – Pakistanization was the UK classical (colonial) concept, action and answer! Now with Brexit, it seems that the Pakistanization (finally) came home.

However, certain destructive UK quasi-intellectual circles are trying to postpone the inevitable. The following lines are about that ill-fated attempt.

**********
Foreign Affairs, a renowned American foreign policy journal, recently published an article under the title Dysfunction in the Balkans, written by Timothy Less. In this article the author offers his advice to the new American Administration, suggesting that it should abandon the policy of support to the territorial integrity of the states created in the process of dissolution of the former Yugoslavia.

Timothy Less advocates a total redesign of the existing state boundaries in the Balkans, on the basis of a rather problematic claim that the multiethnic states in the Balkans (such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia) have proved to be dysfunctional, whereas the ethnically homogenous states (such as Croatia, Albania and Croatia) have proved to be prosperous. Also, the author claims that the peoples in the Balkans, having lost any enthusiasm for the multi-ethnic status quo, predominantly strive to finally accomplish the imagined monoethnic greater state projects – the so-called Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania.

According to Less’ design, the imagined Greater Serbia should embrace the existing Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina (that is, 49% of the Bosnian territory), but also the entire internationally recognized Republic of Montenegro; the Greater Croatia should embrace a future Croatian entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Greater Albania should embrace both Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. All these territorial redesigns, claims Less, would eventually bring about a lasting peace and stability in the region. The question is, to what extent these proposals can be seen as founded in the geopolitical reality of the Balkans, or is the author only acting as a spokesperson for particular interest groups whose aim is to accomplish their geopolitical projects, regardless of the price paid by the peoples of the Balkans?

First, let us take a look at the author’s professional background. According to his official biographies, Timothy Less was the head of the British diplomatic office in Banja Luka, the capital of the Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was also the political secretary of the British Embassy in Skopje, Macedonia. Now he runs a consulting agency called Nova Europa, so he has officially left the British diplomatic service. Thus he served as a diplomat exactly in those two states which are, according to his analysis, the most desirable candidates for dissolution. If one remembers that the British foreign policy, since the 1990s, has occasionally, but unambiguously, advocated the creation of the imagined mono-ethnic greater states – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania – as an alleged path towards lasting stability in the Balkans, it is difficult to escape the impression that this diplomat, having served in Banja Luka and Skopje, probably acted as an informal adviser to those very political forces, such as the Serbian and Albanian separatists, who should be the most active participants in the realization of those greater state projects.

And ever since he left the diplomatic service, Timothy Less has regularly published articles in which he ‘foresees’, that is, invites new ethnic conflicts and ethnic divisions in the Balkans. In the Foreign Affairs article he attempts to persuade the new American Administration that it should also adopt the policy of completion of the greater state projects in the region.

Ironically, Less is now arguing to prevent all those ethnic wars that he himself has been announcing, that is, inviting and advocating. Obviously, the long-term strategy of inviting ethnic conflicts to implement the greater state projects in the Balkans, together with the current strategy of advocating their completion to allegedly bring the stability back to the region, must be perceived as a serious geopolitical projection designed by one relatively influential part of the British foreign policy establishment. In that context, so-called ‘independent experts’, such as Timothy Less, have a task to persuade the world that such projections can be ‘the only reasonable solution’.

Still, it is clear that he is as independent as his solutions are reasonable. For example, Less claims that multi-ethnic states, in which the aforementioned national projects have remained unaccomplished, are the main impediments to stability in the Balkans. However, the historical reality has demonstrated that this claim is a simple red herring fallacy. For, the very concept of completed ethno-national states is a concept that has only led towards perpetual instability wherever applied, because such ethno-national territories cannot be created without violence, that is, without ethnic cleansing and wars.

The strategy of ‘solving national issues’ has always led, both in the Balkans and elsewhere, only towards permanent instability, never towards final stability. What is particularly interesting, in accordance with the principle of national self-determination promoted at the Peace Conference in Versailles the winners in the World War I advocated the creation of the common national state of the Southern Slavs.

Some seventy years later, the same great powers accepted, and sometimes advocated, the dissolution of that very state in the name of self-determination of some other national states, since all the former Yugoslav republics, with the exception of Bosnia-Herzegovina, have been constituted as national states. And now, their spokespersons, like Less, advocate a dissolution of most of these states  to complete some greater state projects – of course, again in the name of national self-determination. Looking from that perspective, one can only conclude that national self-determination, as much as the nation itself, is a totally arbitrary category, changeable in accordance with current geopolitical interests – of course, the interests of the big ones, not of those small ones whose ‘problem of national self-determination’ is allegedly being solved.

Since we cannot reject Less’ proposal as a mere list of the author’s wishes and desires, let us ask ourselves what is the true relevance of Foreign Affairs in international political circles and how much this article can really influence future actions of the new American Administration. Foreign Affairs is a publication sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), whose membership from the very beginning has consisted of senior politicians, secretaries of state, directors of CIA, bankers, academics, lawyers and senior media figures. This organization was founded in 1921 as a common Anglo-American project, conceived as the embodiment of the so-called special relationship between the United States and Great Britain, which had been created during the World War I and has remained present to the present day. In this sense, there can hardly be a journal in the entire world with greater political influence, comparable only with the influence of the CFR itself. Therefore, the geopolitical manifesto written by Timothy Less must be taken with ultimate seriousness, because it certainly reflects the interests of some influential circles within the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment.

Bearing in mind all the public support that Hillary Clinton enjoyed during her presidential campaign from the people gathered around Foreign Affairs, it is reasonable to assume that she would probably adopt Less’ suggestions. However, it is less likely that the newly-elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, who did not enjoy even the slightest support from these circles, will not be so naive as to adopt the strategy of completion of greater state projects presented in Foreign Affairs as his own strategy and a vision that can contribute to peace and stability in any part of the world. However, if that happens, we shall face not only new ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, but also a lasting instability in the rest of the world.

*Graduate of the London School of Economics, Prof. Zlatko Hadžidedić is a prominent thinker, prolific author of numerous books, and indispensable political figure of the former Yugoslav socio-political space in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s.

Impact Of Agusta Westland Controversy – Analysis

0
0

By Deepak Sinha

The theatre of the absurd was recently played out in public on the saga of the Agusta Westland helicopter procurement when the CBI suddenly arrested Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi (Retd), former Air Chief, like a common criminal after three years of charge sheeting him. However, he was released on bail eleven days later with the trial court casting serious aspersions on the actions of the CBI suggesting that it has little or no evidence for its actions. It is instructive and certainly not coincidental that only ACM Tyagi was arrested while others in Government who may have been involved appear to have gone scot free, till date.

While the scam investigation does make for good headlines, the question that bothers me most is why nobody has questioned the necessity for procurement of these helicopters.

It is time now to ask ourselves what has been its impact, especially on the military, which found itself dragged in willy-nilly and has faced the brunt of all investigations undertaken till now. While the former Air Force Chief, Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi, has already been tarred and branded all but guilty by the media, along with a few other officers who may have been involved in the selection process, there is a deafening silence, both in the media and among politicians, regarding the involvement of politicians and bureaucrats without whose active connivance wrongdoing could not have occurred, if it did.

It is incomprehensible that bureaucrats from the Ministry of Defence appear to be getting away unscathed. Whether Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi is guilty of any wrong doing or not, the central fact that cannot be ignored is that the Ministry of Defence is itself at the epicenter of this controversy. That should logically turn the spotlight on the then Defence Secretary and other bureaucrats of the Defence Ministry, the Joint Secretary(Air) and the Director General (Acquisitions) for example, who must have certainly played a pivotal role in all dealings that occurred over the years.

In this context, it coincidentally turns out that between 2003 and 2013; more or less the period within which requirements were altered and the helicopter contracted for, Mr. Sashi Kant Sharma, was the one bureaucrat who held all of these positions, at various times, during his tenures in the MOD. It is difficult to believe that it was sheer providence or his proven abilities that then led to his appointment as the Comptroller and Auditor General by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It is ironic that he is now required to follow up on adverse findings against the MOD on this procurement presented by his predecessor to Parliament. Coincidence surely has some shelf life and does anybody seriously believe that our Service Chiefs actually have powers to fiddle with procurement?

While the scam investigation does make for good headlines, the question that bothers me most is why nobody has questioned the necessity for procurement of these helicopters. After all, our politicians claim to be sons of the soil and no different from us, so why should they be so reluctant to travel around in helicopters that are otherwise in service within the Indian Air Force. Why do they believe that they should all be treated as our sons-in-law and travel in luxury, even if it comes at stupendous costs, while the rest of the country scrabbles around in what passes for public transport? True the Mi-8, which was the aircraft being replaced, had outlived its utility, but the fact of the matter is that it was already under replacement with the Mi-17 V, with much better avionics and available at a fraction of the cost of the Agusta helicopter. It is the work horse of our helicopter fleet in the IAF.

Like we have seen in recent examples of political behaviour in some states, such actions are not just restricted to luxury travel by air, but also to travel by road. A luxury sedan is passé, and only a high end SUV will do. We have a Minister in Karnataka who insisted on being provided a Rs 50 Lakh SUV, from tax payer money, to enable him to travel around his constituency to do his duty, because of a bad back. While one is filled with utmost admiration for his dedication to duty at great personal discomfort, one cannot help but feel that the State of Karnataka will surely not suffer a breakdown of governance, from what it already does, if it had refused his modest contribution and given that task to a more physically fit individual.

Not to be outdone, the former BJP Chief Minister and its present State President, B S Yedyurappa, too had taken a similar ill-advised step but hurriedly backed down when it came in for wide-spread criticism, even from the Party High Command. Like sirens, red lights and security (preferably Black Cats), high end transportation must surely do much for the ego of the political class, especially as they have little to show in terms of personality or leadership skills to set them apart.

Adopting a scatter gun approach to tackle this scandal, just as we did post the Bofors scam with devastating results on our Army’s artillery capability that impacts us even to this day, would be foolish.

However, what is a matter of some shame and great disapprobation is the manner in which the Air Chiefs have acceded to this VIP luxury syndrome, probably because they would also avail the same facilities and be able to massage their own egos as well. That they had a greater responsibility towards their own service and should have insisted on the Government of the day to first arrange finances to select and procure replacements for the MIG-21 fighters that had long outlived their life and were seen as death traps killing the best and brightest among our pilots. That is what they were paid to do and what the rank and file of the service would have expected of them. Incidentally, the MIG-21 joined the IAF in the 1960’s and will continue in service till 2022 as per estimates in public domain, which must certainly be a record of some sort for an Air Force which aspires to compete with the best.

This is not just about the IAF, while Mr. Anthony had no compunctions in ensuring luxury for VIP’s, he could not even ensure the provision of new batteries for INS Sindhuratna, the Kilo-class submarine, that suffered a fire on board leading to the loss of two officers, reportedly because of a battery malfunction which was not unexpected as they had already outlived their functional life. The fact that the Naval Chief, who while accepting moral responsibility, probably resigned in sheer disgust at the unfortunate state of affairs, made little difference to the Government speaks volumes.

Finally, one can be certain that politicians will continue to milk this matter in forthcoming elections, regardless of whether evidence of wrong doing is proved by our investigative agencies. What is a matter of grave concern is the fact that the MOD has already commenced cancelling contracts with other subsidiaries of Finnmeccanica, the firm involved in the scandal, which will leave damaging voids in our defence preparedness. Adopting a scatter gun approach to tackle this scandal, just as we did post the Bofors scam with devastating results on our Army’s artillery capability that impacts us even to this day, would be foolish. In all of this, Messrs. Modi and Parrikar would do well to heed the sane advice of James Baker, two time member of the US Cabinet and Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, when he is purported to have remarked “If you’re not gonna pull the trigger, don’t point the damn gun”.

This article originally appeared in Indian Defence Review.

US Energy-Related CO2 Emissions Lowest Since 1991 – Analysis

0
0

U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions totaled 2,530 million metric tons in the first six months of 2016. This was the lowest emissions level for the first six months of the year since 1991, as mild weather and changes in the fuels used to generate electricity contributed to the decline in energy-related emissions.

EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook projects that energy-associated CO2 emissions will fall to 5,179 million metric tons in 2016, the lowest annual level since 1992.

Mild weather. In the first six months of 2016, the United States had the fewest heating degree days (an indicator of heating demand) since at least 1949, the earliest year for which EIA has monthly data for all 50 states. Warmer weather during winter months reduces demand for heating fuels such as natural gas, distillate heating oil, and electricity.

Overall, total primary energy consumption was 2% lower compared with the first six months of 2015. The decrease was most notable in the residential and electric power sectors, where primary energy consumption decreased 9% and 3%, respectively.

Changing fossil fuel consumption mix. Coal and natural gas consumption each decreased compared to the first six months of 2015. However, the decrease was greater for coal, which generates more carbon emissions when burned than natural gas.

Coal consumption fell 18%, while natural gas consumption fell 1%. These declines more than offset a 1% increase in total petroleum consumption, which rose during that period as a result of low gasoline prices.

Increasing renewable energy consumption. Consumption of renewable fuels that do not produce carbon dioxide increased 9% during the first six months of 2016 compared with the same period in 2015. Wind energy, which saw the largest electricity generating capacity additions of any fuel in 2015, accounted for nearly half the increase. Hydroelectric power, which has increased with the easing of drought conditions on the West Coast, accounted for 35% of the increase in consumption of renewable energy. Solar energy accounted for 13% of the increase and is expected to see the largest capacity additions of any fuel in 2016.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

*Principal contributor: Allen McFarland


Role Of Earth Observation Satellites In Counter-Infiltration – Analysis

0
0

By Amit Mukherjee

The declared use made of earth observation satellites (Cartosat Series) for facilitating the surgical strikes conducted across the Line of Control (LoC) in September 2016 represents a new precedent. India’s proactive action caught the infiltrators as well as the supporting Pakistani establishment by surprise, in both military and policy terms. However, with no subsequent change in the Pakistani establishment’s strategy of sponsoring and facilitating cross-border terrorism, sealing the Western border is being seen as the next counter step. The Home Minister has announced the government’s intent to seal the border by 2018.

Although sealing the entire border would be a significant challenge mainly due to variations in the terrain and topography, the use of remote sensing systems provides one of the more effective means to overcome it. Attempts at infiltration could be detected by using low earth orbit surveillance satellites, which would in turn enable the blocking of infiltrators through suitable force deployment. In this regard, the active deployment of Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which were reportedly used in Operation Ginger in 2011, and High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs that are currently under consideration for procurement, will improve India’s surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

Further, the deployment of high-resolution radar based imaging sensors with all-weather day and night observation capability in the form of the Synthetic Aperture Radar system (SAR sensor platform) would also be advantageous in both the surveillance and active reconnaissance roles. In the aftermath of the November 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, India had benefited from cooperation with Israel in developing RISAT 2 and especially its SAR system. Today, the RISAT 1 and 2 are the only two declared SAR systems in India’s possession for all weather day and night capability with X band and C band sensor systems. India would need to increase the number of such satellites for continuous observation of the western border. In addition, the CARTOSAT is also available for imaging purposes. In fact, ISRO has acknowledged that CARTOSAT was used for imaging areas where surgical strikes were carried out.

Most of India’s present repertoire of 13 operational remote sensing satellites with earth observation payloads, including the RISAT and CARTOSAT series, are assumed to be capable of providing high-quality earth observation imagery ranging from 50m to sub-meter resolution. These have swath coverage in the panchromatic range, from 10 kilometres on the CARTOSAT Series to 250 km in the RISAT series.

Since satellites travel over an observation area in an elliptically linear manner, the curves of a land border are passed over by the satellite in a direct overhead elliptical orbital motion from north to south descending or south to north ascending direction with their respective inclination, azimuth and elevation settings. At a known velocity of 7.5 km/s, these satellites pass over the entire length of the observed Area of Interest (AoI) over the western border of India in three to four minutes or even less. A shorter target region like the border in Jammu & Kashmir would mean an even lesser time for the satellite’s orbital pass. Added to this is the fact that low earth observation satellites do not provide continuous 24×7 observation of the same AoI. On each of its flights over any surface on the earth, the satellite takes snapshots or close earth observation high-resolution images of the area it is ground tracing and this process occurs 14 to 15 times a day (like in the case of Risat-2 satellite), but it may not pass over the same AoI.

The satellite coverage of an AoI, while making an adjacent orbital pass, is dependent on side looking capability of the sensor, its discernible range and angle of view, and the footprint of the satellite. Then there is the aspect of revisit time that allows surveillance for a given period of time till the satellite passes over the same region again. Therefore, the constant monitoring of the AoI requires a constellation of satellites.

At present, there are no satellite constellations that could form a contiguous chain of observation systems to monitor a designated target continuously. Hence, most scenes are individual or a series of observed images. These observations are then analysed with patterns and feature identification processes using photogrammetry tools and other visual aid and identification and digital image processing methods. This process along with inputs from other systems like ground radars and aerial surveillance platforms like the Airborne Early Warning and Control Systems (AEWACS), manned posts, aerial reconnaissance that render round the clock surveillance capabilities provide confirmation or build the overall picture of the situation.

Given all this, India would need more than one satellite constellation. It would require multiple satellites that repeat their observation of a target area; ideally one after the other in a contiguous form so that one satellite is always present over the AoI. To meet that objective, preferably smaller satellite systems at very low earth orbit to enable short revisits and repeat cycles would be ideal. The construction of nano and pico satellites is within India’s technological capability. It is highly recommended that a range of nano and pico satellites be manufactured and their employment integrated with the border management system.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/role-of-earth-observation-satellites-in-counter-infiltration_amukherjee_301216

Carrie Fisher: Hollywood In-Breeding And The Velocity Of Being – OpEd

0
0

There was always going to be a good deal of thick drama around Carrie Fisher, by her own confession, a product of Hollywood in-breeding.  Her parents, Debbie Reynolds and the crooner Eddie Fisher, provided ample material for the gossip columns in a marriage breakup after Eddie sped away with Elizabeth Taylor.  This was the background of an “unfilmable Dynasty”, one featuring “blue-blooded white trash”, mother’s milk for American curiosity.

At 15, Fisher, having dropped out of high school, was already working alongside Reynolds in the 1973 Broadway revival of Irene as a chorus girl.  Then came her movie debut in Shampoo.  There were to be busy years ahead, sharpened by training obtained at London’s Central School of Speech and Drama.

While some had a habit of stepping into the limelight, Fisher was conceived in it.  “Early on, people used to ask me, ‘What’s it like to be Debbie Reynolds’ daughter?’ And I would say, ‘You mean compared to when I wasn’t?”[1]

That limelight, beamed out by the vicious factory of show business, was not always kind.  It was rough, its nastiness having “beat up” her mother, as she explained to the New York Times in 2006. “I had a front-and-centre view of how that hurt her. I understood that when they were done with you, they were done.”

Few other single cinematic events have sealed the recognition of one actor.  With Star Wars (1977), which was merely episode four (subsequently titled with some bombast Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) of the Lucas bonanza, Fisher was dissolved in the blaze of white and parted hair, touched off with bun spirals.   There was only Princess Leia Organa, member of the Imperial senate, leader of Alderaan, and, of course, resistance leader.

Efforts have been made to see in Star Wars an inter-galactic Homeric gravitas hovering over the exploits of recent Western civilization. That is the sort of overview that deserves generous mocking, and Fisher happy to do so.  The first film was merely meant to be a “cool little off-the-radar movie directed by a bearded guy from Modesto.  A thing like that wasn’t going to make people want to play with a doll of you, was it?”[2]

Her opening monologue on Saturday Night Live, when she hosted it in 1978, is filled with biting self-deprecation. There are stabs at the Star Wars lingo.  She is suitably attired.  The wheels of showbiz do turn at various speeds, but they do to the tunes of muddling fiction. Star Wars, for all its cultural clout over the years, remains the space variant of High Noon.

What of George Lucas himself? “George is a sadist,” Fisher proclaimed before an audience gathered for the AFI’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2005.  “But like any abused child wearing a metal bikini, chained to a giant slug about to die, I keep coming back for more.”[3]

Unlike other Hollywood figures trapped at the surface, Fisher had several strings to her extensive bow.  For one, she could write with penetrating self-examination.  The semi-autobiographical Postcards From the Edge (1987) sold well, and the theme was familiar – struggling thespian, overdose, and the restoration efforts.  Her memoir, Wishful Drinking (2008), had most things (manic depression, drug abuse, the death of a good friend from an overdose on painkillers beside her) other than drinking, but was a suitably wicked account she converted to a successful stage act.

Fisher may well have been the figure of sickly adoration and sexual mystification for nerd central, but she was also high priestess of the confession, notably on drug addiction.  “It’s very good,” she told Esquire, “to get through them while you’re young, and then talk about how great or bad they were for the rest of your life.”

The psychological self-portrait would also be disturbed.  She saw herself as a clinical combine, both doctor and patient, “but a lot of the times the doctor isn’t in.  I operate at such a level that sometimes it feels dangerous.”

As with anyone worth their salt in recounting the drug experience, from Thomas De Quincey to William S. Burroughs, coherence in the moment, identifying the slide to the precipice as it is happening, is seminal.  “People think that I’m on drugs because of this velocity of being.  And at the same time it is slow enough for me to be aware of it.  Like when I just said ‘velocity of being’, I liked the sound of it.”[4]

With that velocity of being, she also managed to carve out a field of advocacy which shed her cinematic skin, probing the taboos of mental health, notably in an environment indifferent and remorseless to the casualties of the mind.  While the Daily Mail proved with characteristic life-imitating-art idiocy that this was always difficult (“Princess Leia dead at 60” went its headline), others preferred the Fisher of mental health activism.

Even there, she could be witty with the very idea that she had been named Bipolar Woman of the Year.  After suffering a manic episode in 2013, one which found its way to social media, that new grinder of reputations and souls, she was ready with the response.  “My medication had a little problem with itself.  It’s a balance, and I went out of balance in public.”[5]  Sharp to the last.

Notes:
[1] http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a51869/carrie-fisher-may-1985/

[2] http://qz.com/873113/carrie-fisher-the-novelist-and-memoirist-also-was-an-unsung-genius-script-doctor/

[3] http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/27/14092556/carrie-fisher-george-lucas-criticism-video-star-wars

[4] http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a51869/carrie-fisher-may-1985/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/commentisfree/2016/dec/28/carrie-fisher-bipolar-dies-mental-illness-princess-leia

Donald Trump: Product Of Progressivism – OpEd

0
0

In the bitter aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, Progressives are lamenting Donald Trump’s victory over self-described Progressive Hillary Clinton. Trump’s victory places him in a position of being able to use the power of the presidency to impose his anti-Progressive agenda, displacing the more enlightened Progressive agenda that Clinton would have pursued.

The irony is that the power of the presidency that Trump will assume is the result of more than a century of Progressive reforms that have given the government increasing control over people’s lives. Progressivism began in the late 1800s with the explicit idea that a proper role of government is to favor some at the expense of others.

The earliest Progressive policies included the regulation of the railroads and other businesses along with antitrust laws that were explicitly designed to impose costs on some—who were often labeled “Robber Barons”—to benefit others. Redistribution programs have the same obvious orientation. Some people pay for benefits received by others. The implementation of these Progressive ideas required a government with greater scope and power.

As a result of the Progressive agenda, government now has greater power over our lives through its taxing and regulatory authority. This is what Progressives want, as long as those who benefit from government policies and those upon whom costs are imposed are chosen by the Progressives.

The increased scope and power of government was the explicit desire of Progressives. Now, the powerful government that Progressives created has fallen under the control of a democratically elected leader the Progressives despise.

Whether President Trump turns out to be as evil as Progressives make him out to be is a minor issue. The bigger issue is that when people willingly give up so much of the control of their own lives to the discretion of those who wield the power of government, there is always the risk that someone will gain control of that power who does not meet with the approval of many who are subject to it.

Indeed, given the unpopularity of both Trump and Clinton, that had to happen in the 2016 election. No matter who won, a large segment of the population would have objected to the winner’s use of the power of government. The irony is that with Trump’s victory, the people who are objecting the most are those who support the Progressive ideology that will now enable Trump to exercise so much power over their lives.

President Trump will have much more power than President McKinley did when he was elected in 1896. The reason, in a word, is Progressivism.

This article was published by The Beacon.

Resolution Convolutions – Analysis

0
0

By Adam Garfinkle*

(FPRI) — The State of Israel, and the U.S.-Israeli relationship, now stand before new perils—potentially quite serious ones.

You might suppose that I am referring to the implications of the recent U.S. abstention in the U.N. Security Council concerning Resolution 2334. I am not. I am referring to the implications of prospective changes in U.S. policy toward Israel come next month, and how those changes may ramify in Israeli and regional politics.

But first, let us dispense with the predictable hysteria in some quarters over Resolution 2334, and let me subtly indicate the quarters I have in mind with the following adjuration: Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord, I think, hopes that us all will just calm down for a moment.

The Non-Meaning of Resolution 2334

The Resolution, which passed by a vote of 14-0 with the U.S. abstention, calls Jewish settlements in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem by the U.N.’s definition) “illegal.” Some commentators have argued that this represents a real change in the legal status quo, and that it might even implicate Israeli officials before the International Criminal Court. Some commentators also see the U.S. abstention as representing a major shift in U.S. policy. All of these claims are either untrue or true but trivial.

It has been obvious for years that the United Nations as an epiphenomenal corporate entity thinks that the settlements are illegal, and the same goes for most of its members, many of which think Israel itself is illegal, despite its UN membership. This latest Resolution changes nothing in that regard.

Otherwise, from an international legal perspective (for whatever that’s worth), neither the United Nations nor any of its members has ever positively recognized as valid the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem after the June 1967 War or its right to settle civilians in occupied territory. The latter apparently contravenes the Geneva Conventions, though some people love to argue over that as a variety of secular Talmudics.

Various U.S. administrations, meanwhile, over the past half-century or so have evinced different diplomatic body language as regards the territories and the settlements established on them, but no administration has ever stated that the settlements are legal. Indeed, resolutions quite similar to UNSCR 2334 were allowed to pass at times—for example, the Carter administration abstained on Resolution 446 in 1979. The U.S. government has usually punted the matter as far away as possible, using the anodyne formula holding that the resolution of all the issues to hand has to be agreed among the parties to the dispute.

Nor was the recent U.S. abstention a major shift in recent policy. Anyone who has failed to notice the Obama administration’s position regarding the settlements—and especially settlement expansion—since early 2009 simply cannot have been paying much attention. This administration, and certainly this President, have made it crystal clear that they regard the settlements as obstacles to progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict and have ventured the view that, beyond a certain point (deliberately left unspecified, for good reason), settlement expansion would kill prospects for a two-state solution, the only one deemed viable in the longer run.

But the Obama administration has never said that the settlements were the main or the only obstacle to progress—just “an” obstacle—and the abstention doesn’t change that. Nor does the recent abstention change anything as to the administration’s overall assessment of matters. When, for example, UNESCO passed an outrageous resolution on Jerusalem this past October, the U.S. government was not shy in its response, rejecting the resolution and stating that it would “undermine support for the very legitimacy of this organization.” So the contention that the administration has been ferociously and nefariously anti-Israel from the start is pure goat twaddle.

It has had its differences with Israel on policy matters, true; but that does not make it unique among U.S. administrations—to the contrary. The list of UN resolutions critical of Israel that various administrations let pass or even voted for over the years on a range of issues is long. Besides, the Obama administration has not consistently acted in an anti-Israel mode even at the United Nations. It used its Security Council veto earlier on to kill a Resolution hoped by its sponsors to achieve more or less the same thing as the recent one did. It also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Israel to the tune of $36 billion to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge long into the future. If these are the actions of an administration out from get-go to screw the Jews, so to speak, then one can only speculate as to what a reasonably friendly administration might do.

Why the Abstention?

So why, then, did the U.S. delegation not veto this Resolution as well? According to State Department spokesmen, this Resolution was not as imbalanced and one-sided as previous ones. This qualifies as a half-truth. It is true that the Resolution calls for an end to violence and incitement, and everyone knows whose violence and incitement is meant. But it doesn’t name it as “Palestinian” and, what is worse—the specific language seems to really put a charge in some people—it does not “call upon” the Palestinians to do anything. It only calls upon Israel.

In other words, had the United States vetoed this Resolution, it could have justified doing so on the basis of the language, just as it can reasonably justify not doing so on the basis of the language. It’s just that kind of deliberately debased language. So the real reason for the abstention has to lie elsewhere, and it does.

It seems to lie in the President’s irritation at being ignored by the Israeli government over this question for nigh on eight years. The earlier veto meant to be a bid for leverage: You Israelis freeze settlement activity again (Israel informally did that for ten months earlier on) for a while, and we Americans will see what we can get from the other side. But as U.S. leverage in the region generally declined for other reasons, the Israeli government increased the pace of settlement activity. U.S. officials remonstrated privately and were ignored. U.S. officials low and high found this rather grating. Did the Israeli side think it could shove a forearm repeatedly into the U.S. beezer and not ultimately evoke some kind of response?

Obviously, this pushing and shoving in the background fell into a wider and more public context. The personal relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu has been fraught for a good long while now. This is not the place to debate who started what and so forth. Suffice it to say that, to the U.S. government, the Republican stunt that brought Netanyahu to Washington in March 2015 to lecture the administration from the aisles of the U.S. Capitol on its Iran policy was a diplomatic breach too far. It was, first of all, a partisan political ploy in U.S. terms to harm the administration abetted by a friendly foreign government, and it was a Republican-abetted election ploy from the Israeli point of view to help Netanyahu get re-elected. You don’t use the bilateral relationship for such purposes, and you especially don’t interfere in the domestic affairs of the other side (not that prior U.S. administrations have not been flat guilty of doing that themselves) for such purposes. So in a way, one can interpret the abstention as a form of payback for that affront.

The spleen-spilling of course still goes on. Some Israelis now accuse the Obama administration of having been behind the Resolution from the start. Thus, the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Ron Dermer—a man right in the middle of the March 2015 fiasco that probably irredeemably politicized support for Israel in the context of U.S. politics—claimed that, “They not only did not get up and stop it, they were behind it from the beginning. This is why the Prime Minister is so angry.”

Ambassador Dermer says lots of untrue things, and this appears to be one of them. There is no evidence for his claim. There apparently were general discussions between Secretary Kerry and various Arab governments about wording a resolution that might not force a U.S. veto, but there is no evidence of any joint drafting of language.

Nonetheless, the Israeli government now claims otherwise and claims it is showing defiance of the Resolution and the U.S. abstention by accelerating settlement activity—as if one can requisition and clear land, draw up plans, assemble materials, hire crews, and start work in three days. Obviously, this “new” activity, notably in a place called Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem, has been in the works for months. It is close to insulting to characterize it any other way. This, too, is no surprise, for falsehoods often travel in groups.

As to the Resolution itself, what seems to have happened is that the Egyptians drafted a text hoping to get a freebie: a way to increase their standing with the wealthy Gulf states that benefact them and mollify their “street” over Egyptian-Israeli ties and cooperation, but without pissing off the Israelis in the foreknowledge of a U.S. veto. When the Egyptians got wind that the Obama administration might not veto the text because their own wording was too mild in deference to their ties to Israel, they moved to withdraw it. But some of the Gulf States—Qatar and Kuwait, apparently first in line—with the backing of Britain, not the United States, urged them forward. At that point, for reasons obscure but probably having to do with a phone call from Netanyahu to Putin, the Russians sought a delay. But urged on by the Palestinians, Qataris, and Kuwaitis, the four mostly witless sponsors (Malaysia, Senegal, New Zealand, Venezuela) went ahead anyhow. This forced the Egyptians to vote for their own resolution in the knowledge that it would not be vetoed—a vote that thereby piled potential injury onto an act of cheap cleverness gone very, very wrong.

Whatever reasons exist in the minds of senior U.S. decision-makers for the U.S. abstention—good, bad, and indifferent—does not make it wise. The abstention gives that shard of Israeli politics to the ultra-nationalist side of Benjamin Netanyahu a club with which to beat the Prime Minister’s tactical moderation into the sand. It helps the pro-settlement movement in Israel, because it’s always politically popular there to declare, as Menachem Begin once famously did at another neuralgic moment in the relationship, that Israel “is not a banana republic.” It encourages the Palestinians in their futile and escapist effort to avoid direct negotiations by weakening Israel indirectly. It will needlessly exaggerate the optical distance between the policies of the outgoing administration and the incoming one, which can only harm the American reputation for constancy, continuity, and hence reliability. In that respect, too, it constitutes an act of fecklessness squared: It is puerile to take a swipe at the Israelis by way of a clot of words, and, in this case, the words of a Resolution promulgated by one of the most feckless organizations on the planet.

The same goes for Secretary Kerry’s speech yesterday. Leave aside for the moment the contents of the speech, or, for the sake of argument, grant that some of the ideas expressed in the speech are worthy. Even were that so, it is counterproductive for a lame-duck Secretary on behalf of a lame-duck President to trot out such proposals into the maw of their own near-universally judged fecklessness. Doing so can only discredit the ideas and, as with the abstention, harmfully widen the optic of polarization between out-going and incoming administrations.

Israel is strong. It is strong economically, socially, militarily, and even (still) politically. No one should underestimate the damage that truly bad government can do, but Israel is not yet to the point of extreme peril there. Israel is also stronger than ever in relative terms to the Palestinians, and indeed to the surrounding Arab states that, in any event, have repeatedly proven unwilling to sacrifice anything tangible on behalf of the Palestinians.

Now, one experienced observer worries that by (again) rendering the settlements by law “illegal” in international law, it may complicate an eventual deal wherein settlement blocs become part of Israel in return for relatively minor cessations of land west of the Green Line to a Palestinian state. Perhaps, but it seems to me that if the two sides ever finally get to the point where they are both willing and able to make that kind of deal, it’s highly unlikely that a trickling babble of UN-speak will stop them. Getting around such minor inconveniences is what lawyers are for, and heaven knows there are plenty of them.

So in sum, to worry over the terms of a U.N. Security Council Resolution, or over the potential predations of the International Criminal Court, seems to me a classic case of the Gevult Syndrome at work—namely, the propensity of some history-scarred Jews to exaggerate the negative implications of telegenic but humdrum events. There is a very good chance that Israel will yet be thriving when the charter of ICC is still useful only as highbrow toilet paper.

The Real Danger

So if the whole UNSCR 2334 affair is not really such a big deal after all, from whence the danger of which I spoke at the outset? The answer begs a short story.

Back in early 2009, the Obama administration made a series of rookie errors regarding the Arab-Israeli portfolio from which it never really recovered. Not that the situation was propitious for significant diplomatic progress—it certainly wasn’t. But U.S. policy made things demonstrably worse. How? Well, for one thing by demanding from Israel an open-ended settlement freeze as a pre-condition for restarting talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

News of this demand caught Mahmud Abbas unawares. No one in the new administration had forewarned him of this, and he immediately sensed the problem it caused. The PA had never since the talks back in 1993 that gave rise to the Oslo Accords made such a demand, for the simple reason that its leaders knew that doing so would cause complete stasis. The U.S. demand forced the PA to demand nothing less, and the result was exactly as anyone familiar with the history would have predicted: complete stasis. The U.S. position forced Abbas so high up a pole that he could not readily climb back down, and the result was that the Obama administration compiled the worst record of any U.S. administration since 1967 in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And what is the relevance of this story today? Just this: If President Donald Trump and the likes of his ambassadorial nominee to Israel get to the far right of Prime Minister Netanyahu, they will do the same stupid thing, only on the other side of the fence. As former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Zalman Shoval, put it the other day, Netanyahu does not want to annex chunks of the West Bank; he does not want to accelerate settlement activity for political reasons; he does not want to directly rule the Palestinians; and whatever his ambivalence about the two-state solution might be, he does not want to be the one to destroy its possibility for all time. But this is exactly what a Trump surge to Netanyahu’s right may well accomplish in the context of Israeli coalition politics as they now stand.

Additionally, such actions as moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as abstractly justified as that may be, could trigger demonstrations and violence throughout the region, putting U.S. citizens at risk, and generating gratuitous pressure on U.S. friends and associates in the Arab world. It’s pressure a series of weak and weakening states don’t need, and that could also provoke a stall in the quiet but useful accommodation of many Sunni Arab states with Israel.

Counterproductivity Ad Nauseam

Just what is it about seemingly intelligent human beings that make them so prone to doing counterproductive things?

So it is that many Israelis have concluded that peace with the Palestinians is impossible, and so they then go and do things that incline to make it impossible. And many Palestinians have concluded that peace with Israel on honorable terms is impossible, and so they go and do things that incline to make it impossible, too. And from this confluence of counterproductivity everyone suffers. I’ve long thought that if there is an anti-matter version of O’Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi,” the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is it.

So it is that the Obama administration thought that pounding Israel over settlements would lead to diplomatic progress, when the opposite was the case.

So the Palestinian Authority thinks it can soften up Israeli negotiating positions by running wide, so to speak, to undermine Israel’s legitimacy in international institutions; but the opposite is the case.

So the administration seems to have thought that abstaining from the recent Resolution would have the net effect of constraining Israeli settlement activity and advancing future diplomacy, but the opposite is more likely to be the case.

So it is that the administration sent Secretary Kerry out to make a speech in circumstances that can only harm the U.S. reputation for reliability and thus discount and discredit the very ideas he put forth.

And it seems that the incoming Trump administration wants to help Israel, but may well try to do so in a way that could cause ultimate and perhaps serious long-term harm to it by driving Israeli domestic politics into the arms of its least responsible actors.

Why does this sort of thing keep happening over and over and over again? I wish I knew. For now, the best I can do is to raise an irreverent question about the Holy One’s sense of humor, lift my eyes to heaven and say: “Not funny, Lord. Not one bit.”

About the author:
*Adam Garfinkle
is a Robert A. Fox Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East. He is founding editor of The American Interest.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Donald Trump And Anti-Semitic Zionists – OpEd

0
0

What really got me was the applause.

There they were sitting at the round table, the representatives of the entire world, applauding their own handiwork, the resolution they had just adopted unanimously. The Security Council, like the Knesset, is not used to applause or any other spontaneous outbursts. And yet they clapped their hands like children who had just received their Christmas gift.

(It was indeed a day before Christmas and the first day of Hanukkah, a coincidence that happens once in decades, since the Christians use the solar calendar and the Jews still use a modified lunar calendar.)

The delegates were deliriously happy. They had just achieved something that had eluded them for many years: the condemnation of a blatant breach of international law by the government of Israel.

Consecutive presidents of the US had used their anachronistic veto power to prevent the UN doing its duty. Now, President Barak Obama, at the very end of his presidency, dared to challenge the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, a person he detests with all his heart.

And so, after years of frustration, the highest international body could adopt a resolution on Israel according to its convictions. No wonder they behaved like schoolchildren let out for vacation. A vacation that may, alas, prove to be short.

On the face of it, the joy was exaggerated. The resolution has almost no practical meaning. It has no teeth. Netanyahu could use the old oriental adage: “The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.”

But Netanyahu’s immediate reaction was very different. He acted like a wounded animal: running berserk, thrashing around, biting everyone in reach.

Some of his reactions bordered on the ridiculous. He could have belittled the resolution and made fun of it, as Israeli leaders have done many times before. Instead he recalled his ambassadors from Senegal and New Zealand (traditionally friendly nations), canceled visits of foreign statesmen, called in foreign ambassadors for a dressing-down on Christmas day, threw around insults and especially besmirched President Obama.

This was obviously a stupid thing to do. The President still has 21 days to go, 21 long days in which to hurt Netanyahu. He could, for example, allow the passage of an irrevocable UN resolution to recognize the State of Palestine as a full member of the UN. At the moment, all of official Israel is in a state of panic in anticipation of such a move.

If Netanyahu had read Machiavelli, he would have known that you do not challenge a lion, unless you are able to kill him. Especially, I would add, a lion you have insulted and wounded many times before. Even lions do sometimes get angry.

But Netanyahu’s behavior may not be as stupid as it looks. Actually, it may be quite clever. Depends on his aim.

As a diplomatic strategy, it is disastrous. But as a strategy to win elections, it is quite sensible. Here is the great hero, the new King David, fighting for his people, facing down the entire world. Is there anyone in Israel who can compare with him?

In the bad old days of Golda Meir, one of the Israeli army’s entertainment bands sang a jolly song which started with the words: “The whole world is against us / But we don’t give a damn…” The band danced around to the tune.

For some reason, Jews derive satisfaction from a world-wide condemnation. It affirms what we have known all the time: that all the nations of the world hate us. It shows how special and superior we are. It has nothing to do with our own behavior, God forbid. It is just pure anti-Semitism.

Netanyahu is out-Golda-ing Golda. The old lady now looks down on him from heaven (or up to him from elsewhere?) with envy.

Zioinism was supposed to liberate Israel from these old Jewish complexes. We were supposed to become a normal nation, Israelis instead of “exile” Jews, admired by other nations. Seems we have not quite succeeded.

But there is a great hope. Actually, a giant hope. It has a name: Donald Trump.

He has already tweeted that after he assumes power, everything regarding the UN will change.

But will it? Does anyone – including himself – really know what he has in mind? Can Netanyahu be quite sure?

True, he is sending a rabid Jewish-American ultra-right Zionist as his ambassador to Tel Aviv (or to Jerusalem, we shall see.) A person so right-wing that he makes Netanyahu himself almost look like a leftist.

But at the same time Trump has appointed as his closest assistant a radical white racist with full anti-Semitic credentials.

Perhaps, as some believe, it depends entirely on Trump’s moods. Who knows what his mood will be on the morning of the first important UN vote on Israel? Will he be Trump the Zionist or Trump the anti-Semite?

Actually, he can be both. No problem, really.

The avowed aim of Zionism is to ingather all the Jews in the world in the Jewish State. The avowed aim of the anti-Semites is to expel the Jews from all their countries. Both sides want the same. No conflict.

Theodor Herzl, the Founding Father of Zionism, recognized this right from the beginning. He went to Czarist Russia, which was governed by anti-Semites, and offered a deal: we take the Jews off your hands, you help us to convince them to leave. That was in the heyday of the murderous pogroms. But the Jews who left Russia went en masse to America, very few to Ottoman-ruled Palestine.

This was not a unique chapter. Throughout Zionist history, many attempts have been made to enlist anti-Semites to help in the implementation of the Zionist project.

Even before the Zionist movement was born, American and British evangelists preached the ingathering of the Jewish exiles in the holy land. They may have been Herzl’s inspiration. However, this message of redemption for the Jews had a secret clause. The return of the Jews to Palestine would allow for the second coming of Christ. But then, the Jews would convert to Christianity. Those who refused would be annihilated.

In 1939, when the Nazi danger became obvious, the extreme Zionist leader Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky called for a meeting of his followers in Poland. The leaders of the Irgun underground in Palestine attended. One of them was Abraham Stern, whose nom de guerre was Ya’ir.

The meeting decided to approach the anti-Semitic commanders of the Polish army and offer them a deal: you arm and train young Polish Jews, and we shall liberate Palestine and transport the Polish Jews there. The officers agreed and training camps were set up in Poland. World War II put an end to the plan.

With the outbreak of the war, Jabotinsky, an ardent Anglophile in spite of everything, ordered the Irgun to stop all such actions and cooperate with the British. Stern proposed the opposite approach. His credo was: our enemy is Britain. The war provides us an opportunity to drive them out. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Adolf Hitler is an anti-Semite, but now he is our potential ally.

Stern’s approach caused a split in the Irgun. A furious debate broke out in all the secret cells. As a 16-year old member, I took part. Being a refugee from Nazi Germany, I rejected Stern’s thesis.

Stern created his own group (later called Lehi, Hebrew initials of Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, also known as the “Stern gang”.) He sent an emissary to neutral Turkey, where he delivered the German ambassador a letter for “Mr. Hitler”, offering cooperation. The Fuehrer did not reply. That was, of course, before the Holocaust.

Stern was caught by the British and “shot while trying to escape”. When the war ended, and Soviet Russia became the enemy of Britain and the West, Stern’s heirs approached Stalin and offered cooperation. Stalin, whose anti-Semitism was becoming more pronounced at the time, ignored the offer.

During the war, one of the architects of the Holocaust was Adolf Eichmann, the SS officer who was in charge of organizing the transport of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. In Budapest he established contact with a group of Zionists, led by Israel Kastner, with whom he made a deal. As a good-will gesture he allowed him to send a few hundred Jews to neutral Switzerland.

Eichmann sent one member of the group, Yoel Brand, to Istanbul, with a crazy-looking offer to the Zionist leadership in Jerusalem: if the allies provided the Nazis with a thousand trucks, the deportation of the Hungarian Jews would be stopped.

Contrary to his instructions, Brand crossed the border into British-occupied Syria and was arrested by the British. The deportation of the Hungarian Jews – ten thousand a day – went on.

What was the Nazis’ purpose in this bizarre affair? My own theory is that Heinrich Himmler was already determined to dethrone Hitler and make a separate peace with the Western allies. Eichmann served his plan to establish contact with the allies. As a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite, Himmler was convinced that the Jews control the world.

Some time after the war, in Israeli captivity, Eichmann wrote down his memories. He stated that he believed that the Zionists were the “biologically positive” element of the Jewish race.

Mahmood Abbas, by the way, as a student at Moscow University, wrote his doctoral thesis on Nazi-Zionist cooperation.

Can Trump’s assistants now include rabid Zionists and rabid anti-Semites at the same time?

Of course they can.

This week, our far-right Minister of Defense, Avigdor Lieberman, condemned the French plan to convene (in Paris in a few days from now) a conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Israeli government fears that there, Secretary of State John Kerry will submit his detailed practical plan for a peace agreement, including the setting up of the State of Palestine. This plan would be adopted by the conference, and then by the UN Security Council.

This would be President Obama’s parting shot. No veto.

(By the way, Kerry’s plan is almost identical with a plan my friends and I published in 1957, 59 years ago, called “The Hebrew Manifesto”.)

Blazing with fury, Lieberman compared this to the Dreyfus Affair. Some 120 years ago, a Jewish captain in the French army was falsely convicted of espionage for Germany and sent to Devil’s Island off French Guiana. He was later acquitted. Zionist mythology has it that Theodor Herzl, then a Paris correspondent of a Viennese newspaper, was so shaken by the event that he was inspired with the Zionist idea.

The coming Paris conference, Lieberman asserted angrily, was the Dreyfus Affair all over again, only this time against the entire Jewish people.

But not to worry: Donald Trump and his anti-Semitic Zionists will put everything in order again.

India Drives Mongolia Into China’s Submission – Analysis

0
0

By Shastri Ramachandran*

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the first-ever Indian Prime Minister to visit Mongolia. He may also be the last, as Mongolia now wishes that he had never come.

Thereby hangs a sordid tale of how the cookie crumbled in the steppes; how the itinerant dream merchant fed false hopes to a credulous but friendly and trusting people; and, how Mongolia – when squeezed by China to apologise for the Dalai Lama’s visit and promise to never again invite him – learned the hard way that India would neither come to its aid nor deliver on its promises. Beijing made Ulaanbaatar kowtow, and that was a resounding slap on New Delhi’s face.

Our story begins in May 2015.

Prime Minister Modi travelled to Ulaanbaatar from China, told people in the land of Genghis Khan of Buddhism in India, and of Buddhism, among other civilisational links, being common to India and Mongolia. He also announced a credit line of $1 billion and assured the Mongolian leaders that India would extend support in diverse fields and increase exports to Mongolia. This was the text.

Pictures showed PM Modi patting a Mongol horse and trying his hand at archery – the symbolism of posing with a bow and arrow aimed unmistakably at Beijing. That underscored the subtext.

Modi’s billion-dollar pledge came as a big boost to Mongolia, which is locked between China and Russia, and overwhelmingly dependent on the former. Time was when Mongolia was in a clover, with the Russians and Chinese competing to win them over; and, Mongolia could leverage its ties with one power for bargaining with the other. If Moscow failed to respond to a felt need, Ulaanbaatar could always seek Beijing’s help; and vice versa.

Lately, that has changed. Russia and China have become allies and Russia too is more dependent on China as the greater power especially in the aftermath of the U.S.-led sanctions triggered by the retaking of Crimea.

As a result, Ulaanbaatar can no longer call on the Kremlin to help when Beijing is uncooperative. A poor country, with a GDP of about $ 35 billion, Mongolia now feels “trapped” between Russia and China, particularly with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as the only show in the region.

This brings us to the subtext of Modi’s visit: For New Delhi, it was a successful foray into “China’s backyard”. It was also a message to Beijing that should it seeks to step up its ‘presence’ in Sri Lanka – which is India’s “zone of influence” – then it should be prepared to face India in its own backyard. In fact, the $1 billion pledged by Modi was India’s answer to the few billion dollars China was pouring into Sri Lanka.

The Mongolian leadership saw Prime Minister Modi’s visit as the arrival of a “new power” that would be a counter to China. It was led to believe that it would enjoy India’s support in standing up to China. Indian support, Ulaanbaatar felt, could be critical in the event of Chinese pressure becoming unbearable at a time when Russia can no longer come to its rescue.

The Prime Minister’s visit gave rise to new expectations of economic as well as geopolitical gains. Mongolia naively saw India as a strategic friend that could help Ulaanbaatar stand up to Beijing.

This sense of strength and support, which the Monglians (mistakenly) perceived they were drawing from India, was palpable when I visited Ulaanbaatar in July 2016. To be Indian was special. After all, Mongolia was expecting a billion dollars from India.

“When will this credit line start flowing,” was a question that men, and women, who matter kept popping at me. I had not the heart to disabuse them of their hopes and expectations, when they saw me as the one who had come down from the elephant which is out to slay the dragon.

The crisis erupted in November 2016.

The Dalai Lama, perhaps encouraged by New Delhi, went on a four-day visit to Mongolia. This was his ninth trip to a place where he is revered, and his photo is kept in many monasteries. China resented this provocation, objected to the Dalai’s visit and warned Ulaanbaatar against hosting him. Ulaanbaatar, confident of India’s support, defied Beijing to receive the Dalai Lama.

China struck swiftly with an unprecedented economic blockade. The sanctions paralysed Mongolia’s economy and trade. China slapped a levy on Mongolian goods and trucks entering China. As Russia is too tied to China, Mongolia turned to India, and asked for the promised one billion dollars.

Ambassador Gonchig Ganbold, who met Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) officials, told a leading English daily: “It’s important that India raises its voice against the unilateral measures China is taking against us which is hurting our people especially when severe winter is upon us.” Silence, he said, could be construed as giving China a “pass” for its behaviour.

The MEA spokesman’s response was: As a close friend of Mongolia, which India regards as its ‘third neighbour’ and ‘spiritual neighbour’, we are ready to work with the Mongolian people in this time of their difficulty.

However, Modi Administration was in a funk. There was no trace of the muscle the Prime Minister had displayed to much applause in Ulaanbaatar in May 2015. Any action to ease Mongolia’s difficulties would have meant inviting China’s wrath. Predictably, the political leadership turned a deaf ear to Mongolia’s desperate plea for help.

As a result, on December 21, Ulaanbaatar apologised abjectly to Beijing. Mongolian Foreign Minister Tsend Munkh-Orgil promised that the Dalai Lama would no longer be allowed to enter his country.

Ulaanbaatar fell in line and Beijing resumed the stalled talks for a loan of $4.2 billion. Without China’s financial assistance, the Mongolian economy would collapse.

It is game, set and match to Beijing. This was an entirely avoidable fiasco arising from sheer misjudgement on the part of Mongolia, the Dalai Lama and the Government of India.

*The writer, an independent political and foreign affairs commentator, based in New Delhi has worked in China and had travelled to Mongolia in July 2016 for the Asia-Europe Editors Round Table. This article first appeared in The Citizen on 26 December 2016. It is being reproduced by arrangement with the writer.

Omega-3 Supplements Can Prevent Childhood Asthma

0
0

Taking certain omega-3 fatty acid supplements during pregnancy can reduce the risk of childhood asthma by almost one third, according to a new study from the Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood (COPSAC) and the University of Waterloo.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that women who were prescribed 2.4 grams of long-chain omega-3 supplements during the third trimester of pregnancy reduced their children’s risk of asthma by 31 per cent. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which include eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are found in cold water fish, and key to regulating human immune response.

“We’ve long suspected there was a link between the anti-inflammatory properties of long-chain omega-3 fats, the low intakes of omega-3 in Western diets and the rising rates of childhood asthma,” said Professor Hans Bisgaard of COPSAC at the Copenhagen University Hospital. “This study proves that they are definitively and significantly related.”

The study used rapid analytical techniques developed and performed at the University of Waterloo to measure levels of EPA and DHA in pregnant women’s blood. The University of Waterloo is one of a few laboratories in the world equipped to run such tests.

“Measuring the levels of omega-3 fatty acids in blood provides an accurate and precise assessment of nutrient status,” said Professor Ken Stark, Canada Research Chair in Nutritional Lipidomics and professor in the Faculty of Applied Health Sciences at Waterloo, who led the testing. “Our labs are uniquely equipped to measure fatty acids quickly, extremely precisely, and in a cost-efficient manner.”

The testing also revealed that women with low blood levels of EPA and DHA at the beginning of the study benefitted the most from the supplements. For these women, it reduced their children’s relative risk of developing asthma by 54 per cent.

“The proportion of women with low EPA and DHA in their blood is even higher in Canada and the United States as compared with Denmark. So we would expect an even greater reduction in risk among North American populations,” said Professor Stark. “Identifying these women and providing them with supplements should be considered a front-line defense to reduce and prevent childhood asthma.”

Researchers analyzed blood samples of 695 Danish women at 24 weeks’ gestation and one week after delivery. They then monitored the health status of each participating child for five years, which is the age asthma symptoms can be clinically established.

“Asthma and wheezing disorders have more than doubled in Western countries in recent decades,” said Professor Bisgaard. “We now have a preventative measure to help bring those numbers down.”

Currently, one out of five young children suffer from asthma or a related disorder before school age.


New Cease-Fire In Syria: Challenges And Prospects – OpEd

0
0

Turkey and Russia have brokered a nation-wide cease-fire in Syria that, if successful, can mark a new milestone in the 6-year conflict that has stubbornly defied durable peace despite repeated international efforts. As 2016 comes to a close, the new cease-fire initiative is, of course, welcome news for millions of Syrian people, including tens of thousands of internal war refugees grappling with the winter months. As expected, the UN officials have also welcomed the “Astana initiative” and the related news regarding a new round of political dialogue between the Syrian government and the non-extremist political opposition, to be held in the Kazakh capital, conceived as a parallel track in the recent trilateral meeting of Russia, Turkey and Iran — that resulted in a joint statement that called for the expansion of the Aleppo cease-fire and the building of political dynamic for the resumption of peace talks.

This two-track approach has a lot going for it. First, it reflects the evolution of regional cooperation and the pursuit of a regional solution that can, hopefully, avoid some of the pitfalls of the previous international efforts, including the divisive interests and approaches in the international community that did not prove conducive to the cause of a sustained cease-fire in Syria. Russia, Turkey, and Iran have now taken over the political track and with a deft combination of smart diplomacy, good will, and trust, their efforts can yield positive outcomes in the near future.

Of course, other stakeholders in the Syrian conflict must play their role too in order to bring about a sustained cease-fire and meaningful political process in the war-torn country, presently infested by foreign terrorists. The new US administration has a unique opportunity to transcend the limitations of its predecessor’s policies and put the US power in the service of peace rather than chaos and instability in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. The US superpower is addicted to playing leadership role in global affairs and is naturally disinclined to play second fiddle to other powers, which is why it is important for the trio of Russia, Turkey, and Iran not to fathom a durable peace in Syria without bringing US on board.

As the Russian President Putin has stated, the Astana meeting is meant to “supplement” the current international efforts at peacemaking in Syria. Concerning the latter, the UN Special envoy on Syria, Staffan De Mistura, has given a great deal of weight to the next Geneva round on Syria next February and, hopefully, by then real and tangible progress in terms of both cease-fire and political dialogue has been achieved as a result of the Astana meeting.

With respect to Turkey, which continues to veer between a new, and more realistic, Syria policy and the past “Assad must go” destructive approach, the Turkish leadership has to jettison the counterproductive rhetoric and and act consistent with the Moscow statement — that emphasized Syria’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. Unfortunately, Tukey’s “new Syria policy” is still infected by the venomous past rhetoric that, on balance, has yielded 3 million refugees and other major national security headaches for Turkey. It is imperative for Ankara to engage with Damascus, which is a key player in the equation, if Turkey wants to see the political process succeed.

As for other regional players, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, presently experiencing donor fatigue after years of backing the rebels without achieving any tangible progress, it is in their own national interests to cooperate with the present efforts to achieve a durable peace in Syria. A thaw in Tehran-Riyadh relations might be a sine qua non for this much-needed development, which in turn calls for serious confidence-building steps between the two countries. Certainly, the harmful perception of a zero-sum game in Syria and the conflict’s framing in the arcane language of regional supremacy and the like must be done away with and all sides convinced that peace in Syria is a common good requiring regional cooperation.

In terms of the political process, pursuant to the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted last December, it is important to foster the necessary linkages between cease-fire and political process and to explore the mechanisms for power sharing, forms of governance, new constitution, and elections in Syria. The intra-Syrian talks must be Syrian-owned and Syrian-led and no power should act as a substitute for the Syrian forces, only facilitating the process. Nor should these talks be geared toward slicing up Syria into “zones of influence,” which would contradict the letter, spirit, and intentions of the Moscow statement.

Meanwhile, the cease-fire for the whole of Syria, which is still in flame in many parts, including Idlib, al-waer, Hama, north of Latakia, Barada (a precious few miles from downtown Damascus), parts of Ghouta, Palmyra, and so on, does not include the terrorist-held areas and, therefore, it is important that the lull in fighting does not translate into new opportunities for the terrorists to supply themselves with new weapons and so on. A coordinated US-Russia approach on the war on ISIS is badly-needed, which can come about by US’s satisfaction of the soundness of the scripts for Syrian peace, otherwise it is a sure bet that the US will play a mixed role that would seek to spoil the peace efforts. Lest we forget, the US military torpedoed the September cease-fire, brokered by US and Russian diplomats, by (most likely) deliberately targeting the Syrian soldiers. The US has now threatened to arm the rebels with sophisticated weapons and, certainly, this is an unwise move, particularly since the radical jihadists have come to get their hands on US arms sent to the “moderate” opposition in the past. Again, much depends on the new dynamic of US-Russia relations once Trump assumes power less than a month from now, assuming that Trump’s inclination toward a new Russia re-set is not hampered for one reason or another.

For the moment, however, a combination of factors above-mentioned lend themselves to cautious optimism about the chances for a sustained cease-fire, paving the way for meaningful political dialogue between Damascus and the opposition, an optimism that will not hopefully be rudely replaced by more cynicism regarding the opportunities for ending the calamitous war.

This article appeared at Iranian Diplomacy.

World On High Terror Alert Ahead Of New Year

0
0

By Ben Flanagan

Security measures have been tightened in global capitals ahead of Saturday night’s New Year celebrations, amid heightened fears after a spate of terror attacks.

Security experts said however the barricades, road closures and deployment of heavily armed police in many cities is more a show of force than an effective means to thwart an attack.

As the world ushers in 2017, security will be particularly tight in European cities, following the Daesh-linked truck attack in Berlin that killed 12 people.

Around 1,700 extra officers, some carrying sub-machine guns, along with armored cars and concrete barriers will be among the anti-terror measures in Berlin, Reuters reported.

“Every measure is being taken to prevent a possible attack,” Berlin police spokesman Thomas Neuendorf told Reuters TV.

Trucks have been banned from the centers of Rome and Naples, some 1,600 extra police will be out in force in Madrid, and extra surveillance cameras have been installed in Cologne in Western Germany, according to reports.

Other major global cities including New York, London and Sydney will also be increasing security measures.

But some cast doubt over the ability of officials to prevent against low-tech but fatal terror incidents such as the truck attack in Nice, France, on July 14, in which 86 people were killed.

Terrorism expert Lee Marsden, a professor at the University of East Anglia in the UK, said public concern was at a high following recent events in Europe.

But he said it was difficult to guard against the kind of terror attacks seen in Nice and Berlin.

“Now they’re just using cars and trucks to create as much mayhem as possible, people are getting understandably concerned about it. It’s very difficult for security forces to try to prevent any of these attacks,” Marsden told Arab News.

“These attacks have really thrown into question the ability of the state to protect its citizens. And therefore to try and reassure them they will have a massive show of force on the street. It doesn’t actually deal with the problem, but it will give people some reassurance no doubt.”

Marsden added, however, that the level of public fear was “out of all proportion” to the actual threat in many places.

“The chances of attacks are very very slight indeed,” he said.

Iraq: Coalition Airstrike Results In Possible Civilian Casualties

0
0

During coalition operations to liberate Mosul, Iraq, a coalition airstrike on Thursday struck a van carrying Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant fighters observed firing an SPG-9 recoilless rifle before loading the weapon in the van and driving off, according to a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve news release.

The van was struck in what was later determined to be a hospital compound parking lot resulting in possible civilian casualties, the release said.

CJTF-OIR takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously, the release said, and this incident will be fully investigated and the findings released in a timely and transparent manner.

The release said CJTF-OIR releases monthly reports covering its tracking and investigation of allegations of civilian casualties.

Coalition forces comply with the Law of Armed Conflict, work diligently to be precise in conducting airstrikes, and take all feasible precautions during the planning and execution of airstrikes to reduce the risk of harm to civilians, according to the release.

Islamist Edge To Rohingya Militancy – Analysis

0
0

By Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty

The festering problem of the Muslim Rohingya people in the Arakan State of Myanmar, has mutated from a forgotten ethnic conflict into semi-Islamist uprising with links to the global Jihadist network. The latest bout of violence broke out in October, when Rohingya militants attacked Myanmar border police stations, killing 9 police officers and looting tens of weapons. This led to reprisal attacks by the Myanmar military. Rohingya villages, suspected of harbouring militants, have been burnt and thousands of Rohingyas have fled for safety into Bangladesh which shares a border with Myanmar and has hosted Rohingya refugees for many years, in the contiguous area of Cox’s Bazaar, along the strip of land, south of Chittagong, where Bangladesh and Myanmar share a border along the Naf River. The Muslim Rohingyas are regarded as illegal Bangladeshi migrants by the Myanmar government and the majority of Myanmar’s Buddhist population. Most of them remain stateless, denied citizenship by Myanmar.

The Rohingya Muslims have been living in Myanmar’s Rakhine province for several centuries and they consider themselves as an ethnic minority of the country. However, they have not been listed among the various (135) indigenous ethnic minorities and the Burmese Nationality Law 1982 forbids the grant of citizenship to them. The Rohingyas have been forced to identify themselves as “Bengalis”. To acquire citizenship they have to prove that their ancestors arrived in Burma not after than 1823. Those who fail to provide such evidence are marginalized and forced to move into isolated and restrictive settlement zones.

The government of Myanmar, particularly its military, has been accused of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims. Accusations of genocide have also been levelled against Myanmar’s security forces. The recent bout violence adds another layer to this conflict that has been going on since June 2016, acquiring a profile as a Muslim insurgency, with international Islamist dimensions. The October attack by Rohingya militants was not any random attack. It was clearly planned and coordinated in a manner which could only point towards some military training. The Rohingyas are regarded as a persecuted Muslim minority by the Islamic world and have aroused the sympathy of Muslims and Jihadi groups in several Islamic countries. It is, therefore, not inconceivable that jihadi groups in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are fuelling this insurgency.

A name that has surfaced in reports is that of Abdus Qadoos Burmi, a Pakistani national based in Karachi. Burmi, as his name suggests, is of Rohingya origin from “Burma” the former name of Myanmar. He is known to have issued bulletins in the name of his organization Harakat ul Jihad al-Islami-Arakan (HUJI-K). Burmi is reportedly closely connected to Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Jamaat-ud-Daawah (JuD), the ISI-sponsored jihadi terrorist organizations which have launched several terrorist attacks in India. The LeT and JuD have connections with Al-Qaida and operate freely within Pakistan which has long acquired the dubious distinction as the epicentre of global Jihadi terrorism. Operatives from these terrorist outfits have infiltrated into Myanmar via Bangladesh and Thailand, where Rohingya refugees live along the border. They are suspected to have organized arms and military training for Rohingya militants.

The main Rohingya terrorist group goes by the name of Harakat-ul-Yaqeen whose leaders are based in Saudi Arabia, all of whom are of Rohingya origin. They are well connected in Bangladesh and Pakistan and have visited Bangladesh and northern Rakhine state over the last two years. These jihadists have been canvassing other international jihadists to join the fight against the Myanmar’s military. Their appeal for medicines for foreign-based Rohingyas has been accompanied by appeals for sacrificing their lives for jihad. A prominent member of these jihadists is reported to be Ataullah (alias Ameer Abu Amar, Abu Amar Jununi). Born in Karachi, he is the son of a Muslim Rohingya and grew up in Mecca and Saudi Arabia and received an Islamic education. He disappeared from Saudi Arabia in 2012 and is reported to have gone to Pakistan and may have received training in practical guerilla warfare.

For India, already under periodic attacks by Pakistani state-sponsored jihadi organizations, it would be bad news, if this Islamist inspired and supported violence spills over into Bangladesh and India. This would open another front in the East of the sub-continent and add to security problems that years of insurgency in India’s north-eastern states, with an unstable Myanmar, battling its own insurgencies, providing the support base for Indian insurgents. The 1.1 million Rohingyas in Myanmar’s Rakhine State can become cannon fodder for Islamists whose agenda does not overlap with the issues that complicate lives of the Rohingyas. Simmering violence in the region is not new and can be traced back to the 1940s but did not gain much traction as an armed struggle. The Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), which spearheaded the Rohingya resistance movement, went into decline in the 1990s. The recent round of violence is sure to invite a harsh crackdown by the Myanmar military, leading to an upward spiral in violence and all its unintended consequences.

The Rohingyas are active on social media and are busy using fake news and pictures, purportedly showing atrocities on Rohingyas to motivate Islamists. A well-organized smear campaign is underway against the Myanmar government and its military, whereas a far more serious civil war continues to rage with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and the Myanmar military. More than 1 lakh people have been internally displaced because of Myanmar government’s bombing campaign against the KIA in the Northern and Central Shan province, though the government-sponsored “peace process” has not been abandoned.

Rohingya militants have received arms training in camps along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border and collaborated with the Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS) members from the University of Chittagong in Bangladesh. Videotapes from those camps later showed up with al-Qaida in Kabul, where the US cable TV network CNN obtained them after the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The tapes were marked “Burma” in Arabic and were shown worldwide in August 2002. It was assumed that they were shot inside Burma instead of across the border in Ukhia where Rohingya refugee camps are located in Bangladesh.

The ICS functions as the militant arm of the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and have been responsible for launching violent street demonstrations, attacking security forces, secular political rivals and secular individuals. The ICS has collaborated with other Bangladeshi Islamists to engineer attacks by Rohingya militants in Myanmar. The same combine is notorious for anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh, though the culpability of the Awami League (AL) Party members cannot be dismissed, particularly in the recent violence against the minority Hindu community in Brahmanbaria and Netrokona districts of Bangladesh. The persecuted Rohingyas were also recruited by Jihadi groups to fight in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In an interview with a Karachi-based newspaper (Umma), Osama bin Laden had, inter alia, referred to Burma where strong jihadi forces were present.

Recent attacks by Rohingya militants are showing signs of increased planning and coordination, raising fears of deeper Islamist penetration and cross-border forays to launch attacks against Myanmar’s security forces. Reports of military training in camps in remote border areas of Bangladesh and in Pakistan have surfaced. Funding has come from the usual culprits – Islamist and Jihadi organizations in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Rohingya links with Islamist groups in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines cannot be ruled out. Malaysia and Indonesia have spoken up against Myanmar’s handling of the Rohingya issue. None of the Islamic countries care to speak up against minority persecution when it occurs against non-Muslim minorities. Such parochial approaches detracts attention and sympathy away from the persecution of the Rohingyas.

The Myanmar government has come under enormous pressure from international human rights organizations, including the United Nations. There is no dearth of advice from international HR groups which have issued warnings of enormous risks to Myanmar, if it failed to make more judicious use of force and focus on a political and policy approaches to addresses the problems of the Rohingya people in Rakhine State. It is indeed a complex challenge for the Myanmar government to address the longstanding discrimination against its Muslim Rohingya population, including denial of rights and lack of citizenship.

Rohingya militant attacks have led to the use of disproportionate force and punitive measures by the Myanmar security forces against the civilian population. Denial of humanitarian assistance to the internally displaced and vulnerable population and the absence of a political strategy to lay out a roadmap for future reconciliation, prevents lasting a solution and gives space to militants to carry on their attacks, no doubt with external Islamist and jihadi backing. This does not mitigate the momentum of radical violence and further displacement of the civilian population. Rohingyas have been migrating illegally to other countries like Thailand and Malaysia but these escape routes have been effectively blocked, leaving them to grasp the desperate option of an armed struggle.

Much was expected of Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, but under the constitution she has no direct control over the military. She still has the stature to deal with the Rohingya problem politically but as radical Buddhists in Myanmar become more aggressive, moderate responses recede into the background. Suu Kyi “Panglong-21” initiative did manage to include armed insurgent groups fighting the Myanmar government in the north-east. Given the delicate civilian-military balance of power, the Myanmar military feels relatively free to pursue its security agenda and Suu Kyi probably has little influence over their actions.

For Bangladesh and India, the Rohingya problem poses several layers of policy dilemma. Bangladesh finds itself under moral pressure to take in Rohingya refugees as fellow Muslims, as it had done in the past in the 1900s when over 5 lakh Rohingyas fled Myanmar under the onslaught of the military rulers. Many returned but a sizeable number did not and settled in Bangladesh. Bangladeshis are troubled by their own Liberation War when over 10 million became refugees in 1971 and should, therefore, have an emotional connect to refugees fleeing persecution. But reality bites when there is no guarantee that these refugees will return. Myanmar has consistently maintained that the Rohingyas are Bangladesh migrants and cannot be absorbed as citizens of Myanmar. Many Rohingyas, holding Bangladeshi passports, have been caught in labour importing Gulf countries for criminal offences. This has made Bangladesh wary of the Rohingyas since this impacts on Bangladesh’s image as a labour exporting country.

The Bangladeshi response to the Rohingya crisis has been largely diplomatic. It has canvassed various countries and has urged the international community to resolve the issue. Angry Bangladeshis have even started a signature campaign for a petition to demand that Suu Kyi be stripped off her Nobel Prize for doing nothing to ameliorate the situation of the Rohingyas. Suu Kyi has steered clear of the Rohingya issue for her own domestic reasons and this has rankled Bangladeshis the most, because she enjoyed a huge fan following Bangladesh.

India’s silence on the Rohingya issue has also come under critical scrutiny. Any public criticism of Myanmar has become a sensitive issue and many have argued that if India were to criticize minority persecution in other countries, particularly neighbours, then the persecution of Bangladesh’s Hindu minority and their migration into India, cannot be glossed over. With a BJP-led government under PM Modi in power, this argument has its own traction among policy makers. Moreover, India remains averse to absorbing any more Rohingya refugees, many of whom have entered India from Bangladesh, where they have come under pressure to move on.

Finally, India’s policy of shunning the military regime in Myanmar and supporting the democratic forces in an earlier phase, did not serve India’s interest. Myanmar’s isolation compelled the country military governmentto embrace China much against its will, to the detriment of India’s interest in a neighbouring country. Under the new constitution, the Myanmar military retains considerable influence and Suu Kyi is not in a position to intervene in the way the Rohingya issue is being handled. Moreover, extremist Buddhist opinion in Myanmar is virulently anti-Rohingya. Suu Kyi’s silence has a reason but is eroding her international standing. She is caught between a rock and a hard place. So far international voices have been muted. As for India, there is little probability of any overt move to criticize Myanmar over the Rohingya issue. The approach will be engagement and quiet persuasion. Bangladesh too may find India’s approach worth emulating instead of seeking international intervention.

Turkey: Energy And Infrastructure Forecast 2017 – OpEd

0
0

Economies and businesses are always shaped by expectations, just as market expectations are important in economic forecasts themselves. Within our professional capacity, we have tried to outline a draft forecast for the upcoming days. While it may not necessarily foresee the future in all its detail, it is better to have one, rather than none. Here are our short term new year predictions.

Energy supply security is within our prime concerns. Our installed capacity has reached to 80 GWe, and peak demand at 44 GWe in August 2016. Our local lignite production was 50+ million metric tons in 2016. Hard coal was 2 million metric tons. Imported hard coal was 30 million metric tons.

First S&P and then Moody’s rating agencies have lowered our financial credibility to junk level, the other international rating agency (Fitch) is clever to postpone their Turkish ratings, however we all know that their late declaration is also meaning low rating for our investment environment. Rating agencies ask for transparency, rule of law, fair competition in our local market.

The European Union has frozen accession meetings completely for participation since all remedy requests have been returned with futile responses. Luxemburg, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark have already voiced necessary applicable counter measures.

The recent tax $15 per ton imposed on imported coal could be a deterrent figure for future investments for imported coal firing thermal power plants. Anyhow the latest thermal power plants are exclusively built by Chinese companies due to their ultra low lump sum turnkey prices, covered by cheap PBoC project financing. However these plants have poor design, they have low spares, short life span. If you desperately need electricity generation, then price is not so important. The tax will be collected by our Treasury, and end price is also taxed so our Treasury will get all money from both ends, all other parties are intermediaries in the long run.

On the other hand, 6 US cents per kwh electricity purchase guarantee for local coal firing energy generation is a good booster for newcomer investors. However it is not so pleasing to place orders to Chinese contractors just because of their ultra cheap turnkey prices for new local coal firing thermal power plant investments. These plants do not meet national standard, norms, rules, regulations, laws. They have poor design which are not applicable for local coal, they have limited or almost no spares and high breakdown, low availability and low life span during operation.

New tenders for local coal firing thermal power plants are in Cayirhan-2, Eskişehir, Konya, Trakya. Soma and Çan thermal power plant investment projects are ongoing. There are still imported coal firing projects in Çanakkale, Aliağa, Amasra, Iskenderun bay although imported coal is not encouraged any more.

Nation could not yet recuperate from the unexpected events and after shocks of the last 15-July coup. National healing is continued in a slow pace. Mass demonstrations were a part of this healing process. We do not know nor estimate how long it will last. We are unable to put sound reasoning to the events that took place that night and thereafter. The army, air force and navy are minimized in size and so humiliated at proportions not ever seen before in the national history. Minimizing size of military forces are general tendency in modern times provided that increase in rapid and heavy strike capability are essential. That is acceptable. Humiliation is unacceptable. Closure of prestigious national heritage war schools are not acceptable. We always need strong army in our geography for our survival.

Remedial measures are necessary in the long run. Last but not least, commentators foresee that the last putsch may take place in the Parliament. New opposition may emerge from the ruling party itself. That may appear in the next working session of the Parliament which would start later this year. T
hat is also the time for ending second 3-month emergency period after 15-July coup attempt. This is why ruling party asks other two opposition parties to join public solidarity in democratic union in mass demonstrations. If the last coup would succeed then we could have faced with unprecedented bloodshed everywhere. So any undemocratic counter attempt must be stopped upfront by all means.

Common consensus as created by independent foreign military commentators openly and frankly say that USA (and Nato forces) should leave Incirlik air base for the long term and they should move to relatively more secure or tranquil place such as Southern Cyprus, Northern Iraq, wherever they would feel more comfortable, more independent, more free to maneuver in the Middle East. USA will follow their indifference policy towards international events due to transfer of power after US Presidential elections.

On August meetings which were held in St. Petersburg, Russians asked compensation upfront for downed SU-24 war plane for sure. On negotiation table behind closed doors, there were negotiations for new prices on natural gas sales, more concessions on 63 bcm capacity Turkish Stream underwater pipeline construction project and better terms for 4800 MWe nuclear contract etc. We should note that in the long term Mersin Akkuyu nuclear project may also serve as a new Russian military seaport on Mediterranean coast to reinforce Russian presence on hot seas.

The assassination of Russian Ambassador Hon. Andrei Karlov (RIP), in Ankara Modern Arts Gallery on 19th December, was another misfortunate and sad incident for Turkey. There will be important consequences in time.
Arab countries are completely ignorant of the events which took place at our environment since they have worse incidents they face every day. Their foreign ministries released copy paste declarations for support of ruling party one after another.

We have good deals with Iran due to our favorable gas purchase agreements. However due to their increased internal gas demand, they stopped sending gas to our system as of December. We have gas supply and energy generation drop in our energy markets.

National Security is to be reinforced since SouthEast insurgency may get worse. The people in SouthEast may look for their own solution after arrests of their members of parliament. As seen everywhere in the world, such as in Ireland, Scotland, Bask in Spain, if minorities are not fairly represented in the national parliament, then they may look for their alternative solutions.
Bankruptcy postponement epidemic in the local markets spreads to low capital- small companies. that will be a high impact on our economy despite of unrealistic pictures as pronounced by public officials. People has lost confidence to public declarations. Foreign exchange rates may dive low in time.

Amnesty under code name “prison reform” released large number of convicts, from overpopulated local prisons to make space for the accused of latest coup incident. We hope that courts work in time properly, rule of law is established, justice is ruled as in the books.

There is a wide range consensus for low profile public appearance. People deactivate their accounts in social media. They are not interested in any public expression. Newspaper columns are repetition of earlier articles. People are indifferent to every event since so many nasty things have happened in the near past with no reasoning no meaning we can name. Immigration applications among academics and young professionals are on high rise.

We believe that these are a few warning indicators, of which you will seldom read such candid forecast from a local source for our home environment anywhere else. We would be pleased to receive your comments and feedback over the course of the upcoming year.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images