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

Faull: UK Can’t Buy Single Market Access

0
0

(EurActiv) — Britain will not be able to buy access to the single market following its exit from the EU, a former top UK official at European Commission warned, casting doubt on mooted government plans for Britain’s future relationship with the bloc.

British Prime Minister Theresa May intends to launch the two-year process of negotiations to leave the EU by the end of March and some members of her government have suggested this could include paying to maintain access to the single market.

But Jonathan Faull, who worked in the Commission for 38 years until retiring in 2016, said paying to access the tariff-free zone was not how the EU worked.

“Can you buy access to the Single Market? It’s not something that’s on sale in that way,” he told the BBC’s Newsnight programme late on Thursday (5 January).

That contrasts with the idea floated by Brexit minister David Davis, who has said that after the UK leaves the EU, giving it control over migration, the country could continue to make payments into the EU budget in order to maintain access for its exporters to the single market.

One area in which Britain did have a strong hand to negotiate with the EU as defence co-operation which the bloc will want to continue, Faull said.

“But that’s more complicated if you’re outside the EU, because part of the mechanisms used for this purpose are today EU mechanisms,” he said.

Faull’s warning that Britain won’t be able to buy EU single market access comes at a time of change for Britain’s Brexit negotiating team. Ivan Rogers, the country’s envoy to the EU, quit earlier this week and was replaced by Tim Barrow.

Prime Minister May has so far said little publicly about her negotiating position ahead of what are expected to be some of the most complicated international talks Britain has engaged in since World War Two.

Some investors fear the government will prioritise curbing immigration, a so-called “hard Brexit”, over ensuring Britain maintains single market access.

Faull dismissed the idea that Britain could have an arrangement with the bloc similar to that of non-EU member Norway, pointing out that Norway makes budgetary contributions to the EU as well as accepting the free movement of people.

“It’s (Norway is) not buying access to the single market in that sense, it’s taking part in a project,” Faull said.


Iran: Former President Rafsanjani Dies At 82

0
0

(RFE/RL) — Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a dominant figure in the country’s politics for decades, has died from heart failure, state media report. He was 82.

Iranian media said on January 8 that Rafsanjani had been admitted to the Shohadaa Hospital in northern Tehran because of a heart condition.

State TV later announced that “unfortunately, the doctors’ effort was not successful and he passed away.”

Rafsanjani’s body was later transferred to Jamaran prayer hall, where politicians and religious figures gathered to pay their last respects.

The government announced three days of mourning, and a funeral was expected to be held on January 10.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s most powerful figure, said political differences never overshadowed decades of “friendship” with Rafsanjani.

President Hassan Rohani wrote on Twitter, “The soul of the great man of the [Islamic] Revolution, symbol of patience and resistance has gone to Heaven.”

Rafsanjani was regarded as a “pragmatic conservative” open to improving ties to the West.

He headed the Expediency Council, a body that is intended to resolve disputes between the parliament and the Guardians Council — an unelected constitutional watchdog.

Rafsanjani was also a member of the Assembly of Experts — Iran’s top clerical body, charged with appointing, and if required dismissing, the country’s supreme leader.

He served as president from 1989 to 1997. During his two terms in office, he consistently tried to promote reforms, a free-market position domestically, and supported a moderate position internationally.

However, Rafsanjani was accused by some Iranian reformers of involvement in the killing of liberals and dissidents during his presidency — charges he denied.

He was also named by prosecutors in Argentina among the Iranian officials suspected of links to a 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.

Iranian human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebad told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that Rafsanjani was at least “aware” if not involved in “many human rights tragedies,” including the slaying of the dissidents in Iran.

“Therefore, his human rights records are by no means positive,” Ebadi said.

However, Ebadi pointed out that Rafsanjani “came closer to people” later in his political career and “started to say things that people wanted to hear.”

Rafsanjani ran again for president in 2005, but lost to Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the then relatively little-known mayor of Tehran. After the election defeat, Rafsanjani became openly critical of the president.

After Ahmadinejad’s reelection in the disputed 2009 vote, Rafsanjani came under pressure by hard-liners after calling for the immediate release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

The electoral dispute led to eight months of violent street protests.

Some of the members of Rafsanjani’s family have also made the headlines.

Rafsanjani’s daughter Faezeh was arrested in 2012 on charges of “antigovernment propaganda” during the 2009 vote. She spent six months in prison, a sentence seen as aimed at Rafsanjani.

His son Mehdi was also arrested in 2012 and sentenced to 10 years on corruption and security charges.

Rafsanjani sought to run for the 2013 presidential election but Iran’s election overseers rejected his candidacy, citing his advanced age.

Rafsanjani delivered crucial support for the eventual winner, Hassan Rohani, a moderate with whom he had a warm rapport.

Georgia: Construction Of Trump Tower Batumi Scrapped

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — The Trump Organization, Donald Trump’s property development company, and Silk Road Group (SRG), Trump Tower Batumi’s Georgian developer, issued a joint statement on January 6, announcing their decision to formally end the development of Trump Tower Batumi, a 47-storey luxury residential condominium in Black Sea resort town of Batumi, Georgia.

“[The parties] jointly announce their decision to formally end the development of Trump Tower, Batumi, … under the license agreement executed in March 2011,” the statement reads.

“Trump Organization continues to hold SRG and the Republic of Georgia in the highest regard,” the statement also noted.

The statement added that Silk Road Group, Georgian conglomerate with business interests in transportation, telecommunications, banking and property development, which acted as the Trump Organization’s local partner in Georgia, “is grateful to the Trump Organization for the time and attention they have dedicated to this project and fully understands the circumstances and accepts this request.”

“Going forward, SRG plans to build a luxury condominium tower along the Georgian Black Sea coast in Batumi and is confident that this spectacular project envisioned by Mr. Trump during his visit to the Republic of Georgia in 2012, will strengthen Georgia’s bid to become a global destination,” the statement concludes.

SRG was to use “Trump” name and mark under a license agreement concluded with the Trump Organization in March, 2011 in New York during a ceremony attended by then President Mikheil Saakashvili.

President Saakashvili and American property tycoon Donald Trump unveiled the Trump Tower project in Georgia’s Black Sea resort Batumi on April 22, 2012.

Saakashvili first met with Trump to discuss investment opportunities in Georgia in April, 2010. Saakashvili met with Trump again in New York in September, 2010. It was reported at the time that a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Trump Organization and Silk Road Group.

Initially, two Trump-branded towers were planned to be built in Georgia, another one in the capital Tbilisi, but eventually, the companies moved forward with Batumi project only.

Iran’s FM Zarif Appeals To UN Chief Over Rohigya

0
0

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has written to the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres to demand international action to stop rights violations against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

In a letter addressed to Guterres on Friday, Zarif said the plight of the Rohingya has caused international concern.

The ethnic Muslims have not only been deprived of their most basic right — i.e. the right to belong to a country and a government that would protect them — they are also being exposed to killings and violent and inhumane treatment on a daily basis, he wrote.

The Iranian foreign minister referred to an upcoming ad hoc meeting by the foreign ministers of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 19 to address the situation of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and said the meeting reflects the depth of concern on the part of Islamic governments about the ethnic Muslims’ conditions.

The Rohingya have been subjected to persecution in Myanmar since 2012. Extremist Buddhists have attacked the Muslims, mainly in the northern Rakhine State, recurrently, torching their houses and causing them bodily harm.

Since October last year, however, the Muslims have faced increased violence. Back then, the Myanmarese military imposed a siege on Rakhine, and the government of Myanmar has blocked humanitarian and media access to the Muslims in the state ever since. There have been numerous reports of killings, rapes, and other forms of abuse being carried out against the besieged Muslims.

Tens of thousands of the members of the minority group have been forced to flee to neighboring regions, in Kachin State or across the border to Bangladesh.

Zarif said the “the systematic violation of the Rohingya Muslims’ basic rights and denying them citizenship… and forcing them to leave their homes” would have adverse consequences on peace and stability in Myanmar as well as in neighboring and regional countries.

He said it was expected of Myanmar’s government to take immediate and effective action to protect the rights of the Rohingya and not allow extremist groups to tarnish the peaceful image of Buddhism.

The top Iranian diplomat said it is also expected of Guterres and his special envoy for Myanmar to communicate to the Myanmarese government the demand of the international community and the Islamic world concerning immediate humanitarian access to affected areas.

He also expressed hope that the UN, through the mechanisms available to it, would take the necessary measures to address the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

The UN said on Friday that a special rapporteur would be visiting Myanmar on Monday to investigate reports of abuse against the ethnic Muslims in Rakhine. Special Rapporteur on Myanmar Yanghee Lee will start a 12-day visit to Rakhine and Kachin states on Monday, the UN said.

Assessing Obama’s Asia Rebalancing Strategy – Analysis

0
0

By Uriel N. Galace*

United States President Barack Obama sought to re-invigorate the US’ primacy in the Asia Pacific with a speech to the Australian Parliament in November 17, 2011, announcing a new foreign policy towards the region.1 Dubbed the “rebalancing strategy,” this plan sought to expand American presence within the Asia-Pacific by forging closer military, trade, and people-to-people ties with various states across the region. According to the White House, this strategy has been made necessary because “Asia and the Pacific is increasingly the world’s political and economic center of gravity” and the US would be remiss not to leverage the opportunities the region has to offer.2

With Obama’s term winding down and president-elect Donald Trump set to take the reins as US commander-in-chief, now is the appropriate time to look back and assess the effectiveness of this strategy. This commentary evaluates the impact of Obama’s rebalance by examining the strategy across three dimensions—political / military, economic, and socio-cultural.

Political / military impact

The focus of Obama’s rebalancing strategy has been to expand US military presence across the Asia-Pacific. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, Asian countries have increasingly sought greater US presence in the region to serve as a counterweight to the muscular foreign policy of Beijing. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the US has come to view China as its principal rival to regional hegemony, given the latter’s status as a rising power. Consequently, although the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to assert that it welcomes China’s rise, in reality, the US has worked to bolster its presence in the region as part of its “containment strategy” towards China.3

In order to accomplish this, Washington has sought to enhance existing military agreements with its treaty allies—namely, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand—while forging new ties with so-called “emerging partners” such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam.4 With the Philippines in particular, the US has sought to increase cooperation through the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). “The [EDCA] is mutually beneficial, enhancing our ability to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and help build capacity for the Armed Forces of the Philippines through interoperability, capability development, and modernization,” says Molly Koscina, Press Attaché of the US Embassy in Manila.5 All in all, these military alliances have served to “enhance US defense posture in the region” as Washington “prioritizes Asia for its most advanced military capabilities,” the White House says.6

Despite these accomplishments, it is questionable whether this strategy has ultimately been effective in achieving its implicit goal of containing China. Beijing’s strategy of ignoring the ruling of an international tribunal in The Hague that invalidated most of its claims in the South China Sea appears to have paid off. Reports have surfaced that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is willing to “set aside” the arbitral decision in his quest to strengthen Manila’s bilateral relationship with Beijing.7 Meanwhile, there are signs that other Asian countries may soon follow in Duterte’s lead, as Malaysia8 and Vietnam,9 which both have overlapping maritime claims with China in the South China Sea, have attempted to downplay the dispute and forge closer ties with Beijing after witnessing the economic benefits to be gained from being in its good graces.

Economic impact

The Asia-Pacific has increasingly taken on outsized strategic importance for US economic interests. In 2015, US goods and services traded with China totaled an estimated US $659.4B, making it the US’ 2nd largest trading partner (the US is China’s largest trading partner). Similarly, trade in goods between the US and ASEAN exceeded US $226B last year, making ASEAN the US’ 4th largest trading partner (the US is ASEAN’s 3rd largest trading partner).11 As such, Washington has an enormous interest in ensuring the continuous free flow of trade and investment in the region.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) forms the economic bedrock of Washington’s rebalance to Asia strategy. The TPP is a landmark agreement involving 12 Pacific Rim countries that “eliminates or reduces tariffs, lowers the cost of trade, and sets new and high standards for global trade while addressing next-generation issues.”12 It is expected to generate an additional $225 billion for the world economy by 2025.13 Writing of the trade agreement for Foreign Policy magazine when she was still US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said that the goal of the TPP is to “serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.”14

Although Washington continues to market the TPP abroad as a “high standard, 21st century trade agreement that provides for fair competition and strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property and human rights,” as the US Embassy in Manila iterated,15 at home, it is sold to American officials as a mechanism by which the US can ensure that it writes the rules of trade in the Asia-Pacific so that other countries “play by [US] rules and [US] values.”16 In this way, through the TPP, Washington can ensure that it—not Beijing, which is excluded from the agreement—is able to exert influence across the region.

However, with the ascendancy of Trump, who ran on an anti-trade platform, to the US presidency, it is widely believed that the TPP is now essentially dead in the water. This has caused numerous countries—including the Philippines—to look elsewhere for regional trade agreements, according to Philippine Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III.17 One such arrangement is the Regional Cooperation Economic Partnership, an ASEAN-led proposal for a free trade area that includes all ASEAN-10 countries, plus China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—but notably excludes the US. If the countries in the region choose to sign this trade agreement rather than the TPP, it would represent a big blow to Washington’s ambitions to write the rules of trade in the Asia-Pacific.

Socio-cultural impact

In addition to its political and economic facets, another often overlooked but key pillar of the Asia rebalancing strategy is strengthening people-to-people ties between the US and the countries of the region. As Susan Rice, the US National Security Adviser to the President, writes, “the Asia Rebalance is not only about our engagement with other governments. Another core of our approach is about engaging with people across the region.”18

The most notable element of this pillar is the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI), a program personally initiated by Obama himself. YSEALI is a capacity-building program that seeks to develop the skills of its participants and allow them to forge networks with their peers in Southeast Asia, thereby enhancing regional integration—all with the goal of empowering the youth to develop their respective communities. Since its inception in 2013, YSEALI has grown to over 100,000 members,19 with the Philippines having the most members among participating countries. Other people-to-people programs of the US government which were continued during Obama’s term include Fulbright, the International Visitor Leadership Program, and the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study program.20

Of the three dimensions evaluated in this commentary, it is arguably the socio-cultural one that has been the most effective. Through YSEALI and other people-to-people programs, the US is able to engage in a form of “cultural diplomacy” whereby it is able to “win the hearts and minds” of its participants and inculcate in them American norms and values. In doing so, Washington may be able to influence these individuals to adopt pro-American attitudes and leverage this network to support its national interest in the future.

Conclusion

In the end, Obama’s Asia rebalancing strategy has produced mixed results. Although Washington has succeeded in enhancing US military presence in the Asia-Pacific, it has failed to prevent Beijing from flouting international law and throwing its weight around in the region. Although it has succeeded in forging closer people-to-people ties, it has been unable to follow through with a proposed trade deal that secures its economic interests. With Obama working now to transition the presidency to the mercurial Trump, there is considerable uncertainty regarding how US relations with the Asia-Pacific will play out going forward.

About the author:
*Uriel N. Galace
is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist at the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Mr. Galace can be reached at ungalace@fsi.gov.ph.

Source:
This article was published by FSI. The views expressed in this publication are of the authors alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

Endnotes:
1Compton, M. (2011). President Obama Addresses the Australian Parliament. The White House. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/17/president-obama-addresses-australian-parliament

2FACT SHEET: Advancing the Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific. (2015). The White House. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific

3 Panda, A. (2016). How Obama Sees Asia. The Diplomat. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/how-obama-sees-asia/

4 FACT SHEET: Advancing the Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific. (2015). The White House. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific

5 Koscina, M. (2016). Interview with Molly Koscina, Press Attaché of the US Embassy in Manila. Pasay City.

6 FACT SHEET: Advancing the Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific. (2015). The White House. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific

7 Salaverria, L. (2016). Duterte to set aside UN tribunal ruling on maritime dispute. Inquirer.net. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://globalnation.inquirer.net/150837/duterte-set-aside-un-tribunal-ruling-maritime-dispute

8 Denyer, S. (2016). On Duterte’s heels, Malaysia is the next Asian country to embrace China. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/domino-theory-or-hedging-after-the-philippines-now-malaysia-embraces-china/2016/10/31/d30984ea-9f63-11e6-b74c-603fd6bbc17f_story.html?utm_term=.18dbe0f08111

9 Bauhui, Z. (2016). Will Duterte’s Pivot to China Start a Chain Reaction Across Asia?. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/25/duterte-china-manila-beijing-chain-reaction-us-allies-pivot-to-china/

10 “The People’s Republic of China.” Office of the United States Trade Representative (2016) . Retrieved 25 August 2016, from https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china

11 FACT SHEET: Unprecedented U.S.-ASEAN Relations. (2016). The White House. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/12/fact-sheet-unprecedented-us-asean-relations

12 Remo, A. (2016). Gov’t to pursue PH inclusion in TPP. Inquirer.net. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://business.inquirer.net/215035/govt-to-pursue-ph-inclusion-in-tpp

13 Ibid.

14 Clinton, H. (2011). America’s Pacific Century. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/

15 Koscina, M. (2016). Interview with Molly Koscina, Press Attaché of the US Embassy in Manila. Pasay City.

16 Rice, S. (2016). Explaining President Obama’s Rebalance Strategy. US Department of State. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2016/09/06/explaining-president-obama-s-rebalance-strategy

17 Dela Paz, C. (2016). PH shelves TPP membership, eyes China-led RCEP. Rappler. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from http://www.rappler.com/business/153119-philippines-shelves-tpp-membership

18 Rice, S. (2016). Explaining President Obama’s Rebalance Strategy. US Department of State. Retrieved 22 December 2016, from https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2016/09/06/explaining-president-obama-s-rebalance-strategy

19 Ibid.

20 Koscina, M. (2016). Interview with Molly Koscina, Press Attaché of the US Embassy in Manila. Pasay City.

Saving ‘Private’ Islam – OpEd

0
0

I am beginning to believe that the private and personal aspect of belief is more important to be nurtured than to be engaged in the act of making religion public and having an agenda for promoting it, leading to the ugly word called ‘proselytising’.

Religious wars are fought not only out of the need for more land, wealth, and control over human and material resources but also the belief that one’s religion need to be ‘spread’ and an ‘empire of faith’ created. This is the main feature of history of social evolution: conquest in the name of this or that god.

How do we bring back the idea that we have probably made a wrong historical turn and that religion need to again be kept private and faith need to be nurtured only on the inside and not to be made public as a process of expanding institutions. In the case of Islam for example, how do we save it from further damage from all these sectoral violent conflicts and keep it private, as in the idea of separation of religion and the state.

Saving ‘private’ Islam comes to my mind.

Here are my random thoughts. It is about making Islam private again and having the believers think about the most fundamental and foundational inner thought that will guide action: Tawhid or the Quantum Physics idea of Singularity
.
One of the realities about Islam as it is represented today is that very few understand its meaning in a contemporary social context, let alone be able to apply it to the world that is organic, emotionally unstable, and constantly evolving as patterned by organised chaos and complexity.

What is missing in the discourse of contemporary Islam is the idea of the fluidity of One-ness and the bounded-ness of Multiplicity as twin paradoxes of what philosophy in this age of cybernetics, terrorism, and ‘neo-frankensteinism’ means.

In other words, what Muslims of today need is not about debate, dialogue, and discourse in ‘what is the correct ideology that constitutes Islam’, but a radical rephrasing of the question itself: what is this notion of peace within the self, as it interacts with the outer boundaries of the self and how must the “self” behave in a world of complexity of beings without losing the fundamental believe in the holistic and philosophic-ness of the self itself.

This is the notion of ‘tawhid’ in traditional Islamic discourse Islamic scholars of today need to explore.

What Muslims need to develop is a version of reconstructed ‘Tawhidism’; one that is not about the Islamic concept of it, with the cultural baggage of Arabism; rather, it is about the interplay between Singularity and Multiplicity we frame using some version of Complexity Theory.

Scholars need to look at the Islamic notion of the ‘knowledge of the One-ness of god’, from the philological and philosophical perspective and see how this idea can move nations, especially as we see the relevance to the Muslims in Malaysia.

‘An interesting case study’

Malaysia is an interesting case study because of its interesting evolution not only as a plural society but also one impacted by contemporary advances in globalised technologies and ideologies.
In the Malaysian scenario, a ‘version’ of Islam began being imposed upon the rakyat (people) since the 1980s during a first phase of ‘Islamisation’.

The reign of Mahathir Mohamad brought mega-changes such as the imposition of Malaysia Incorporated, the Privatisation Policy, and The Look East policy.

It also brought the push to ‘Islamise society’, through the work of Mahathir’s deputy, Anwar Ibrahim.

Educational, cultural, and governmental institutions were made to be more ‘Islamic’, and the nation was hegemonised by this idea of moral and intellectual leadership.

As this idea evolved and permeated through the system, this ‘Islamic version of Malaysia’s developmentalist paradigm’ became one that couldn’t be questioned as to its singularity, where any person even hinting of deviating from the official view would face authoritarian consequences through the ‘Sharia police’.

There is a transculturalist and revisionist perspective on the Islamic scriptures. Scholars have begun to acknowledge the fact that the Islamic text or the Quran is ‘cultural-bound’ and speaks of the time and place unique to the people of the Middle East. The stories in the Quran are essentially about prophets and messengers of the land of Arabia.

There is then the problem of universalising the experience of reading the text without ‘transferring the culture embedded in the language itself’. This has led to immense disagreement and conflict in how to approach the text of the Muslims without a culture subjecting itself to the process or even the onslaught of Arabisation.

In addition, centuries old Islam-predated cultural ideas such as animism in parts of South-East Asia included have been planted their roost in the psyche of the peoples, giving the unique identity such as those manifested in the idea of Javanese syncretism.

Especially in South-East Asia, Hindu-Buddhist philosophy was already in vogue in the early kingdoms such as those in Srivijaya, Mataram, Singhasari, Majapahit in Java and in the kingdoms in Champa and Siam. Islam came at a later stage through the work of Arab traders and also those deliberately trying to spread this new religion from Arabia.

The triumph of Islam is clear today: the Muslim man is becoming the Arabian man. How is this possible in relation to the idea of Islam as a private affair for the soul of the believer?

Morocco: Cabbies Sabotage Uber App

0
0

As their smartphone screens lit up with ride requests last month, Uber drivers in the Moroccan city of Casablanca must have thought that business was booming.

Instead, they found themselves surrounded by irate local taxi drivers, who forced them from their vehicles and handed them over to the police, the latest in a string of protests in the kingdom against the controversial travel app.

“After the tramway, illegal drivers and now Uber, they are trying to kill us off,” said Abdelouahed, who works for a small local taxi firm.

Uber launched in Morocco’s economic hub in 2015 but was banned by local authorities after just one month.

It has recently found itself the target of increasingly brash protests organised by owners of Casablanca’s famous tomato red cabs.

“When you open Uber on your phone, you see drivers swarming around you like a virus,” said Nordine, a fifty-something driver sat on the hood of his taxi.

“And like a virus, you need radical solutions. Trap them.”

In one protest last month, dozens of taxi drivers posed as would-be passengers, flooding the app with requests before forcing the Uber drivers from their vehicles, much to the bemusement of onlookers.

The management of taxis in Morocco normally falls to local government. The transport ministry has so far kept quiet as to why Uber continues to operate in the streets of Casablanca.

‘Illegal and unauthorised’

“Our position hasn’t changed,” a senior official from Casablanca’s local administration told AFP. “We see (Uber) as an unauthorised and illegal company.”

Local media said recently that as many as 30 separate protests against app drivers had been held, ranging from threats, car chases and even ambushes such as the one in December

Uber Morocco director general Meryem Belqziz insisted these were “isolated” incidents.

“There were no injuries. It was more harassment,” she told AFP, admitting however that Uber drivers had been “shaken” by some protests.

There are now more than 250 taxis working for Uber in Casablanca, Belqziz said, and the app has enjoyed 15,000 unique users in the last three months.

Business has boomed for Uber since it launched in San Francisco in 2011.

But the smartphone app has faced stiff resistance from traditional taxi drivers the world over, as well as bans in some places over safety concerns and questions over legal issues, including taxes.

Uber says it is not a transport company like taxi firms, and that it simply connects drivers with passengers.

While many drivers have been tempted by Uber’s model, many more operators of Casablanca’s estimated 18,000 taxis continue to denounce the app’s “unfair competition”, while passengers still heavily rely instead on local ride startups such as Careem and chauffeur.ma.

The recent opening of a new tram line in the city has also siphoned off some of the local drivers’ traditional clientele.

“The tram has already eaten up an important part of our market, and things are getting worse with Uber, which operates without constraint,” said Abdelouahed.

Belqziz insists that Uber and local taxis can operate side-by-side, but admits her firm’s legal status “needs clarifying”.

“With every important change you meet resistance, but with time people get used to new modes of consumption,” she said.

Carter: US Needs Strong, Balanced Approach To Russia

0
0

By Lisa Ferdinando

The United States needs a strong but balanced approach to Russia, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Carter also discussed the recent U.S. intelligence community assessment of alleged Russian activities and intentions in the November presidential election. The intelligence community did a “painstaking” and “careful” job in coming to its assessment, Carter said.

The intelligence community on Friday released a declassified assessment that alleged Russia carried out an “influence campaign” aimed at the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Those alleged actions included cyber activities against targets, according to the assessment.

The intelligence community, according to Carter, was “very clear — they were very unequivocal about the judgement.” The situation raises questions about U.S. overall strategy with respect to Russia, he said.

“It’s an aggressive act against our very democracy,” he said, adding, “That’s why I think all Americans need to regard it very seriously.”

A U.S. response does not have to be limited to cyber, or to a military response, he explained, emphasizing the importance of trying to work with Russia “where we can.”

Carter, who leaves his post later this month, said he thinks “the steps that have been taken so far probably represent a beginning and not the end — a floor, not the ceiling — obviously being up to the next administration and the next congress to take those steps.”

Regarding Russia in Syria, Carter said Moscow has done “virtually zero” in fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and has instead made “the ending of the Syrian civil war there harder.”

On other topics, Carter described the North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense programs as a “serious threat” to the United States.
The U.S. has taken a number of steps to stay ahead of that threat, he said, including upgrading the number and type of its missiles; deploying missile defenses in South Korea, Japan and Guam; and having 28,500 troops in South Korea who are ready to “fight tonight.”


Macedonia: Political Crisis Overshadows Ethnic Tensions – Analysis

0
0

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Ethnically-charged incidents that mainly troubled the relations between Macedonians and Albanians this year, as to 2015, were overshadowed by the political crisis that began at the start of the previous year.

Macedonia this year saw two failed attempts to stage early elections and then polls on December 11, a controversial presidential pardoning of top officials suspected of various crimes, which was later withdrawn, massive anti-government protests as well as a series of political ructions between the ruling party and the opposition, which meant that ethnic issues did not attract as much attention in some previous years.

Kumanovo shootout trial still ongoing

The year started with the still-ongoing trial of 29 ethnic Albanians who stand accused of terrorism for their involvement in a shootout with the police that left 18 dead in Kumanovo in May 2015, eight of whom were police officers.

The high-security trial that started in February in Skopje continued to stir discontent among country’s Albanians, as many of them saw it as a politically-motivated farce, staged by a judiciary that has long lost its credibility among the majority of the population.

Ever since the bloody events in Kumanovo, which came against the backdrop of the political conflagration that revolved around opposition claims that former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski ordered the illegal surveillance of some 20,000 people, some critics have accused the authorities of actually plotting the violence in the town in order to distract attention from the ongoing crisis.

Many, Albanians and Macedonians alike, continued to see the trial in the same light, suspecting that the people put on trial for terrorism were just scapegoats used to mask the political misdeeds of those in power.

The discontent just grew stronger as lawyers for the defendants on several occasions alleged that their clients had been tortured in custody – claims to which all except the Ombudsman’s office appear to have turned a blind eye.

Two more ethnically-charged cases

While the Kumanovo shootout trial took the spotlight, two more cases concerning ethnic Albanians also tested Macedonia this year.

After the court in Skopje in December 2015 upheld life sentences for six ethnic Albanians convicted of terrorism for the killing of five Macedonians in 2012 – a case that sparked ethnically-charged unrest that year – the defence lawyers spent this year hoping a retrial would be possible after some of the revelations in wiretapped recording of senior officials, which were released by the opposition Social Democrats, shed more light on the case which they claimed was politically motivated.

The Special Prosecution which was set up in 2015 to investigate criminal allegations arising from the wiretaps, asked to take over the case, which sparked hopes of a retrial, but it remains to be seen whether that will happen next year.

In another, much older politically-charged case, in which 11 ethnic Albanian villagers from Sopot are accused of planting a mine that killed two Polish NATO soldiers and one Macedonian civilian in 2003, a retrial has already been set but over the course of the year, its start was repeatedly postponed.

The initial hearing in the retrial at Skopje’s Criminal Court was postponed yet again on December 20, following the postponement of four other hearings earlier this year. Only two preparatory hearings have taken place so far.

The defendants in this case, tired after their 13-year legal fight, also hope that the case will soon be transferred to the new Special Prosecution and that a fresh investigation will be launched which could exonerate them.

Court strikes down Macedonian lustration

In July, amid the already shaken credibility of a process that aimed to name and shame former secret police collaborators in Macedonia, ended in farce, as the Administrative Court started annulling its decisions, one by one.

In June and July alone, the court annulled 17 decisions made by the Macedonian Lustration Commission. Another 40 contested decisions were either annulled in the following months or still await rulings.

As these rulings affected many of the 200 lustrated people who have been declared to be former collaborators with the secret police, the entire process is now in deep trouble.

Only the defiant head of the Lustration Commission, Tome Adziev, stood by his body’s decisions. He called the Administrative Court’s decisions “odd” and said that the court had ignored ample police evidence proving – he said – that those who had been named as police collaborators had been guilty as charged.

The annulments came after the EU exerted pressure on Macedonia in 2015 to scrap the much-disputed lustration process, which it said the government had turned into a weapon for dealing with its critics.

After this, the Commission last year said it was terminating the lustration process, but maintaining the restrictions on the people it had lustrated, one of which was a ban on running for public office.

The latest developments opened up the possibility for many of those who have been named by the Lustration Commission to now seek damages through the domestic courts and internationally.

Child’s death sparks ethnic row

In July, a brawl in a hospital queue that ended with the death of a child threatened to stir up new conflict between Albanians and Macedonians in the ethnically-mixed town of Kumanovo.

The Macedonian authorities and the family of the four-year-old child who died, Almir Aliu, had to call for calm after a protest in Kumanovo by thousands of ethnic Albanians accusing the suspected ethnic Macedonian killer of an ethnic hate crime, threatened to spin out of control.

The boy, an ethnic Albanian, died from wounds he sustained when he and his parents were run over by a car driven by 30-year-old Boban Ilic, an ethnic Macedonian who is now awaiting a trial.

The incident took place at Kumanovo general hospital when, according to police, the two families started to brawl amid an argument over who should see the doctor first.

In a chilling hospital video footage published by some media, a car, reportedly driven by Ilic, was seen slamming into the boy and his parents, who were also injured.

Mass grave found in politician’s yard

In October, the news of the discovery of an old mass grave in western Macedonia, believed to date from the Second Balkan War, sparked people’s interest but did not cause ethnic discontent.

The mass grave was discovered in the village of Zajas, near the family house of Ali Ahmeti, the head of the junior party in Macedonia’s ruling coalition, the Democratic Union for Integration.

Investigators said it could contain the remains of anything from 10 to 60 people and that it is believed that the victims are predominantly local ethnic Albanian residents who were killed in 1913, the year of the Second Balkan War.

Unlike in the First Balkan War of 1912, when several Balkan states fought side-by-side to oust the weakened Ottoman Empire from the Balkan peninsula, the Second Balkan War broke when Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece, unhappy over its share of spoils in Macedonia from the first war.

Much of the conflict, which was tainted by frequent massacres on all sides, took place on what was then the geographical region of Macedonia, of which only one part is today’s Republic of Macedonia.

Albanian and Serbian scholars have conflicting views about whether or not the Serbian army and paramilitaries committed massacres of Albanians in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania during the wars.

Albanians vote for ethnic Macedonian opposition

For the first time in country’s history, a considerable number of ethnic Albanians supported the main opposition Social Democratic party and did not vote for an ethnic Albanian party at the December 11 elections.

This arguably helped the Social Democrats to end up in a virtual tie with the centre-right VMRO DPMNE ruling party, whose election rhetoric was based on Macedonian nationalist and anti-Albanian sentiments.

Although estimates of how many Albanians did in fact vote for the Social Democrats vary from some 25,000 up to some 40,000, most observers agree that this happened mainly due to opposition party’s more civic platform.

Another factor was the discontent among Albanians – who make some one quarter of the country’s population of 2.1 million – about the current political offer of the Albanian parties.

War crimes convict becomes MP

The year ended with the election of Johan Tarculovski, the only Macedonian convicted by the Hague war crimes tribunal, as an MP for the main ruling VMRO DPMNE party at the December 11 parliamentary elections.

Former policeman Tarculovski entered parliament after being elected as an MP in the country’s second electoral unit that covers parts of Macedonia’s north-east but also parts of capital Skopje.

His election however did not spark serious reactions from the country’s Albanians as it was overshadowed by the larger political turmoil revolving around the near-tied election results between the ruling party and the opposition and the uncertainty about who will be able to form a government.

Tarculovski served eight years of his 12-year jail term before he was granted early release in 2013 and joined the centre-right ruling party that feted him as a hero and used him as a party mascot.

The Hague Tribunal convicted him of leading a police unit that killed ethnic Albanian civilians and committed other atrocities in the Albanian-populated village of Ljuboten near Skopje.

The crime took place during the brief armed conflict in 2001 between Macedonian security forces and a now-disbanded Albanian insurgent force whose leaders now lead the Democratic Union for Integration party, which for the past eight years has been a junior government partner to VMRO DPMNE.

Although some observers thought it was inappropriate for a controversial figure like Tarculovski to be a candidate for parliament, his party insisted it was proud to have him.

Sri Lanka Foreign Minister To Visit UK

0
0

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera will travel to the United Kingdom on 9-14 January 2017 on an official visit. This is the first high-level visit from Sri Lanka to the UK, since the appointment of the new Government of Prime Minister Theresa May following the Brexit vote in July 2016.

According to the Sri Lanka government, the visit reflects the continuing dialogue between Sri Lanka and the UK since resetting bilateral ties in January 2015.

Minister Samaraweera is scheduled to meet with the Rt. Boris Johnson, UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and other key interlocutors. The discussions are expected to review developments in the bilateral relationship, including the way forward to further advance trade and investment between the two countries.

Samaraweera will apprise his counterpart on the milestones being achieved by the Sri Lankan Government in institutional building to strengthen democracy, reconciliation and inclusive development.

During the visit, Samaraweera will also meet with the Rt. Patricia Scotland, Commonwealth Secretary General to discuss Sri Lanka’s shared interests and cooperation as an active member of the organization.

The bilateral segment of the programm includes a speaking engagement by Minister Samaraweera at the Chatham House on the efforts of the Unity Government to move forward peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, according to the Sri Lanka government.

Future Of Bipartisanship In Trump Administration – Analysis

0
0

By Allen Moore*

Just six days before the stunning election of Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States, an odd discovery was made near a remote Alaskan village: two full grown male moose were found frozen in several feet of water with their horns locked together. These thousand pound giants no doubt became entangled while fighting over a female, and died together. It seems an apt metaphor for what could happen in the next Congress if Republicans and Democrats are unable to find a way to work together.

Many Americans are under the mistaken impression that since Republicans now control the White House and both branches of Congress, they can do whatever they want legislatively. They can’t. They face two challenges: first, the Republicans must figure out how to agree among themselves; and second, at least in the Senate, they must figure out how to bring some Democrats along.

Healing the Republican Divide

The Great Recession of 2007-09 blew apart an already fragile Republican coalition. Previously, fiscal and social conservatives found benefit in working together even though their priorities were quite different. The recession gave new impetus to a fledgling “Tea Party” movement of small groups furious about unrestrained federal spending, deficits, and taxes. They were particularly incensed by the massive 2009 “stimulus” spending bill and a law granting financial relief to homeowners whose mortgages were in default, believing it rewarded irresponsible behavior at the expense of those living within their means.

Before long, the movement was attracting a wider circle of disenchanted Republicans, Democrats and Independents incensed over the loss of jobs, homes, home equity, savings, health insurance, and the hopes of a better life for their kids. They also believed that Wall Street bankers who contributed to the economic collapse got a free pass. In the Congressional elections of 2010, about forty Tea Party Republicans were elected, handing Republicans a majority. That was the good news for Republicans. The bad news was that the Tea Party folks said “no” to just about everything.

It was the job of the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), to keep this disparate band together. When he couldn’t get enough votes from his own party to pass critical legislation like spending bills, Boehner sometimes felt compelled to reach across the partisan aisle for his majority, further infuriating his right flank. His final such act was a year-end spending bill in 2015 after which he stepped down and handed new Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) the job of keeping Republicans together.

Just a few weeks ago, Republicans feared the loss of both the White House and the Senate majority, an electoral blow out of epic proportions. Alas, Donald Trump, with all his flaws and controversies, orchestrated his own blow out. The election results and Mr. Trump’s more measured tone since have drawn back to the Republican fold many of those who opposed his candidacy. They want to be part of this unexpected opportunity. That doesn’t mean it will be easy. “Working with” is not the same as “agreeing with.” And then there’s the matter of the U.S. Senate.

Finding Democratic Partners in the Senate

The challenge in the Senate will be to assemble the 60 votes needed to beat filibusters, the lengthy debates for which the Senate is famous…or infamous. You wouldn’t know it from reading the news, but the Senate still gets most of its work done by unanimous consent. The leaders of both parties work out procedural agreements behind the scenes, protecting the rights of individual Senators along the way. Unfortunately, these agreements have become harder to come by in recent years. That usually leaves a choice for the Senate majority– postpone (or give up on) the issue or subject it to unlimited debate. Once a filibuster begins, 60 Senators must agree to end it. The process can take days or weeks.

The last time either party had 60 votes was in 2009, when two Independents joined 58 Democrats to create a “filibuster-proof” majority. The Democrats needed every vote to pass the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). For me, the 60 votes was the “curse of 60” because it allowed Democrats to proceed without any Republican support. If they had taken a different course in the development of healthcare reform and worked with a group of Republicans willing and anxious to participate, the result would likely have been a less ambitious law that enjoyed bipartisan support. Such support would have greatly enhanced the chances of making changes to the underlying law as problems emerged.

The “new” Senate sworn in this January will have 52 Republicans, eight shy of a “filibuster-proof” majority. Therefore, major legislation will need eight Democrats, or even more if any Republicans balk. For example, if President Trump wants a major infrastructure spending bill that is not “paid for” with new revenue or reduced spending elsewhere, he may lose some Republicans. But, he may more than make up for the losses with support from Democrats (the same thing could occur in the House).

Chances for bipartisanship should improve with the elevation of Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as Democratic Leader. Known as a deal-maker, Schumer has also known the President-elect for many years. Schumer also benefits from not being Harry Reid (D-NV), the retiring Democratic leader who did more in the last three years to unite fractured Senate Republicans than anyone could have imagined.

In order to end perceived (and real) Republican obstructionism, Reid led an effort to change long-standing Senate rules and practices by a simple majority. His legacy makes it impossible for Democrats to filibuster controversial Cabinet appointees and federal judgeships below the Supreme Court. Furthermore, by refusing to allow amendments to legislation, Reid got very little done in 2014. His controversial actions so outraged all Republicans that he single-handedly helped get Ted Cruz (R-TX), Susan Collins (R-ME), and John McCain (R-AZ) on the same page. I’m convinced Reid’s actions helped Republicans re-take the Senate majority that fall.

Democrats regularly charge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with saying on the day of President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 that Republicans would obstruct everything he tried to do so that he would be a one-term president. He never said it. He did say, two years later, that his top priority was to make the president a one-term president. In the same interview, he expressed a willingness to work with the president on matters for the good of the country if the president would show more flexibility. Sometimes that happened.

It’s hard to think of any Congressional or national Democrat who doesn’t prioritize making Donald Trump a one-term president. That does not mean that they won’t work with him on matters where they can agree. And work together they must if they are to succeed in their sworn duty to advance the economic interests, security imperatives, and legal rights of all Americans. The alternative? Imagine 535 Members of Congress and one president locked in deadly embrace at the bottom of the frozen Potomac come spring.

About the author:
*Allen Moore
is Senior Advisor at the Stimson Center. He was Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Administration for President Ronald Reagan, senior policy advisor to President Gerald Ford, and policy director for U.S. Senators John Danforth (R-MO) and Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN).

Source:
This article was published by the Stimson Center.

The Becoming Of Kurdistan – OpEd

0
0

Walking around in Ebril, Iraq, you can easily come across cues of a coming of a new tiny nation. There is an imposing Parliament in the center of the city, diplomatic missions of foreign states, soldiers sporting a non-Iraqi national flag and a separate national anthem. This is the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, under Baghdad’s writ.

And the winds of change have never been stronger here.

In early February, President Masoud Barzani called for a referendum on Kurdish independence. “The time has come and the conditions are now suitable for the people to make a decision through a referendum on their future,” Barzani said.

The Kurdistan region gained autonomy within Iraq in 1991 after US intervention and was officially recognized by the Iraqi Government in 2005. The turmoil brewing in Iraq and Syria and the shifting borders may eventually come to fulfillment of a dream of Independent Kurdistan region that has remained shattered for a century after the signing of Sykes-Picot agreement (by which most of the Arab land after the fall of the Ottoman Empire was to be divided between France and Britain).

The neighbouring voices

Turkey has taken a stand against the Shiite Asaad regime in Syria and is a key supporter of rebel Syrian groups, and it has also been critical of support for the Syrian Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG) – an affiliate of the banned Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

However, back in Turkey, President Erdogan is trying to bridge the political and diplomatic isolation Kurds have faced in the country, as more of a politically correct move to assuage the growing domestic turmoil.

In Syria, the Kurdish faction is a divided house, divided in opinion and methods and united in cause of gaining autonomy.

This has both concerned and cornered Iran as an extended autonomous Kurdish region would block the trade channel that Iran uses to send arms and amenities to Syria and Lebanon.

The third major player in the region Iran, probably the only backer of Asaad Government, along with Russia, which wants to protect a key naval facility leased at the Syrian port of Tartous, which serves as Russia’s sole Mediterranean base for its Black Sea fleet. Both Iran and Russia had been critical of PKK’s activities in Syrian Kurdistan.

Birth of Kurdistan

For the birth of independent Kurdistan the omens have never been better. When ISIS raced across the Syrian Desert to capture the city of Mosul, barely an hour long drive from Ebril, it declared effacing the century old Sykes-Picot agreement, thereby diluting the boundaries between Syria and Iraq. This presented a ripe opportunity for the Kurdish Government and the Pashmerga militia to strengthen its borders and its claim on autonomous Kurdish region.

Unaffected by the Shia-Sunni divide which plagued Iraq, Kurdistan established itself as a more stable, prosperous and democratic region of Iraq. Kurdistan has established diplomatic and trade relations with major Arab nations including Turkey and Iran, along with United States.

The Turkish move of allowing the passage of two oil pipelines and one gas pipelines from Kurdish soil to its territories without taking Iraq into confidence, pave way for Kurdistan’s economic independence to metamorphose into political independence.

This was further strengthened by the Kurdish army take-over of the oil rich city of Kirkuk, a city long hailed as the Kurdish Jerusalem, the spiritual and political focus of a new state. Meanwhile, the collapse of large swathes of Iraqi army in Northern regions, created a vacuum which the Kurdish army Pashmegra, filled, thereby gaining 40% more territory than their original.

At the same time, the Iraqi-led Kurdish faction is patching up its differences with the Syrian cousin faction called Rojava, in the NE Syria. Rojava is in sway with Turkey based Kurdistan’s Workers Party (PKK). This reconciliation between the two factions, together with a ceasefire called between Turkey and PKK has improved Kurdish fortunes. This has also helped make Kurds emerge a stronger and a more united force.

The underlying fears

The climate of uncertainty prevails in the region and creation of a new state in the region could invite more voices of independence and could also prompt a complete fall of the Iraqi state into three factions – the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis, further intensifying sectarian conflicts.

Kurdistan is still far from economic independence; being a land-locked region it is completely dependent on Iraq or Turkey for shipping oil.

Any event of separate nationality will come with unwanted truce with Iraq; and Turkey with its long history of Kurd suppression may anytime turn its back. Since Kurdistan economic backbone is oil, this could take a hitting on nation’s prospects and dipping oil prices with no external support from Baghdad may sound a death bell to Kurdistan liberation.

Any given day, Kurdistan will have to prepare itself to take in the population of Christian Yezidis, Zeonists, Alawaihate tribes and other war refugees, who would cross borders to Kurdistan.

A redrawing of the Iraq’s map, would have great impact on the region, an independent Kurd state in Iraq (with huge oil reserves), could spark further calls of a greater Kurdistan. Turkey and Iran would be wary of these developments. Or this could bolster Iran’s move to get the Shiite part of Iraq integrated with Iran, and with that would come huge oil reserves to increase political dominion in the region. This would concern US and Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, the independent Sunni region, not under the whims of a Shia Government, would find a common cause with Syria’s Sunnis. This could restrict ISIS to Syria and to an extent make it vulnerable to International action.

Iraq was always a group of ethnicities put together in a box, the current violence has opened this closed box. The historical injustice was done in the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916, when nations were invented and borders drawn in a conference, without appreciating the ethnic complexity in the region. Today’s war is a consequence of that injustice.

*Aakash is a social researcher working on development policies in developing nations across South Asia and Africa and has keen interest in political developments shaping the global landscape. He is also a widely published travel writer @ handofcolors.me

Ron Paul: Will Obama’s ‘Good War’ In Afghanistan Continue? – OpEd

0
0

Last week, as the mainstream media continued to obsess over the CIA’s evidence-free claim that the Russians hacked the presidential election, President Obama quietly sent 300 US Marines back into Afghanistan’s Helmand Province. This is the first time in three years that the US military has been sent into that conflict zone, and it represents a final failure of Obama’s Afghanistan policy. The outgoing president promised that by the end of his second term, the US military would only be present in small numbers and only on embassy duty. But more than 8,000 US troops will remain in Afghanistan as he leaves office.

When President Obama was first elected he swore that he would end the US presence in Iraq (the “bad” war) and increase US presence in Afghanistan (the “good” war). He ended up increasing troops to both wars, while the situation in each country continued to deteriorate.

Why are the Marines needed in the Helmand Province? Because although the foolish and counterproductive 15-year US war in Afghanistan was long ago lost, Washington cannot face this fact. Last year the Taliban controlled 20 percent of the province. This year they control 85 percent of the province. So billions more must be spent and many more lives will be lost.

Will these 300 Marines somehow achieve what the 2011 peak of 100,000 US soldiers was not able to achieve? Will this last push “win” the war? Hardly! The more the president orders military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, the worse it gets. In 2016, for example, President Obama dropped 1,337 bombs on Afghanistan, a 40 percent increase from 2015. According to the United Nations, in 2016 there were 2,562 conflict-related civilian deaths and 5,835 injuries. And the Taliban continues to score victories over the Afghan puppet government.

The interventionists in Washington continue to run our foreign policy regardless of who is elected. They push for wars, they push for regime change, then they push for billions to reconstruct the bombed-out countries. When the “liberated” country ends up in worse shape, they claim it was because we just didn’t do enough of what ruined the country in the first place. It’s completely illogical, but the presidents who keep seeking the neocons’ advice don’t seem to notice. Obama – the “peace” candidate and president – has proven himself no different than his predecessors.

What will a President Trump do about the 15 year failed nation-building experiment in Afghanistan? He has criticized the long-standing US policy of “regime-change” and “nation-building” while on the campaign trail, and I would like to think he would just bring the troops home. However, I would not be surprised if he accelerates US military action in Afghanistan to “win the war” once and for all. He will not succeed if he does so, as the war is not winnable – no one even knows what “winning” looks like! We may well see even more US troops killing and being killed in Afghanistan a year from now if that is the case. That would be a terrible tragedy.

Published by RonPaul Institute.

India: Troubles Persist In Assam – Analysis

0
0

By Nijeesh N.*

On December 31, 2016, one militant belonging to the I.K. Songbijit faction of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS), identified as Aalai Ram Brahma aka Anthai Brahma was killed in an encounter by the Indian Army at Dhopguri village under the Orang Police Station of Udalguri District. The militant was injured in a fierce exchange of fire, and later the same day succumbed to his injuries at Guwahati Medical College Hospital (GMCH).

On December 28, 2016, an NDFB-IKS militant, identified as Ratan Narzary was killed during a gun fight with Security Forces (SFs) in Kokrajhar District. Kokrajhar Superintendent of Police (SP) Rajen Singh stated that a joint team of the 7th Battalion of the Sikh Light Infantry (LI) regiment and Kokrajhar Police, based on specific information regarding the movement of NDFB-IKS, launched a joint operation at Ashrabari (Laopani area) under the Bismuri Police Outpost in the morning of December 28 and a group of 3 or 4 suspected cadres of the outfit were seen moving in the area. The militants opened fire on the joint team on being challenged, and the ambush party fired back. The exchange of fire that lasted for about 15 minutes, and SF’s recovered one AK-56 assault rifle, a magazine, 11 live ammunition, nine fired cases, one hand grenade, a bag, a blanket, two mobile phones and two active SIM cards. However, villagers started protests against the killing, claiming that he was not associated with any militant organisation and demanded a probe into the killing. On December 30, 2016, Chief Minister (CM) Sarbananda Sonowal instructed the Commissioner, Lower Assam, Mohammad M.U. Ahmed to conduct a probe into the incident.

On December 10, 2016, two NDFB-IKS militants were killed in an encounter with a joint team of the Assam Police and Army in the deep jungles along the Indo-Bhutan border in Kokrajhar District. On a tip-off, SFs launched an operation inside the Kochugaon Reserve Forest in the Oksiguri area in the early hours and a group of four insurgents exchanged fire with the security team. Two of the militants were killed on the spot, Bodoland Territorial Area District (BTAD) Inspector General of Police (IGP) L.R. Bishnoi disclosed. An AK-56 rifle with 21 rounds of live ammunition, and one 7.65 mm pistol with one magazine containing three rounds of live ammunition were recovered from the slain militants.

Crucially, in terms of insurgency/militancy-related violence, Assam is the only State in the Northeast region which recorded higher fatalities during 2016, as compared to the preceding year. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), in 2016, the State registered a total of 86 fatalities, including 33 civilians, four SF personnel and 49 militants. In comparison, 2015 had recorded a total of 59 killings, including 10 civilians, one SF trooper and 48 militants. In 2015, the State had recorded the lowest insurgency-related fatalities since 1992 [the year since which SATP data is available]. No killing has been registered in the state in the current year 2017, till date (Data updated till January 8, 2017).

Worryingly, the number of civilian fatalities in the state increased sharply to 33 in 2016 from 10 in 2015. Last year’s civilian toll was also the lowest since 1992; 184 civilian fatalities were recorded in 2014. In one of the worst terrorist attack on the civilians since the December 23, 2014, Adivasi massacre, suspected NDFB-IKS militants opened indiscriminate fire at the crowded Balajan Tiniali Weekly (Friday) Market in Kokrajhar District on August 5, 2016, killing 14 persons, including two women, and injuring another 20. According to eyewitnesses, there were four to five terrorists in military fatigues, armed with sophisticated weapons, who fired at the crowd in the market at around 11.30 am. Personnel of the 3rd Rajput Regiment based in Kokrajhar, who were passing through the market, started retaliatory firing, killing one terrorist, while the others managed to escape. Significantly, only one major incident (involving three or more fatalities) was reported with civilian fatalities between December 23, 2014, and August 5, 2016: on April 4, 2016, at least three persons were killed and over twenty were injured in a powerful grenade attack by the Independent faction of United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA-I) at Dudhnoi in Goalpara District.

Similarly, SF fatalities also increased from one in 2015 to four in 2016. In the worst incident of this nature in 2016, on November 19, three Army personnel were killed and another four were injured when militants ambushed an Army convoy at Pengaree near Digboi in Tinsukia District.

Due to sustained operations by SFs in the State, 49 militants belonging to various insurgent groups lost their lives during 2016, as against 48 in 2015. Of the 49 militants killed, NDFB-IKS lost the largest number, 22; followed by Karbi People’s Liberation Tigers (KPLT), 11; three cadres each of the ULFA-I and the Khaplang faction of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-K); two cadres each of the Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF), People’s Liberation Front of Meghalaya (PLF-M), Reformation faction of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-R); and one cadre each of National Santhal Liberation Army (NSLA), United Democratic Liberation Army (UDLA), Kamtapur Liberation Organization (KLO), and United People’s Liberation Army (UPLA). In one of the most successful operations in recent times, on September 23, 2016, the Indian Army along with personnel of the Assam Police, killed at least six KPLT militants including two of its “top leaders” according to Police sources, in a swift and surgical operation in the Nambar Reserve Forest in East Karbi Anglong District.

SFs also arrested 490 militants of various outfits in Assam through 2016. These included 152 of NDFB-IKS; followed by ULFA-I, 61; Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), 24; National Santhal Liberation Army (NSLA), 23; KPLT, 18; Helem Tiger Force (HTF), 11; Kamtapur Liberation Organization (KLO), 10. In 2015, a total of 602 militants had been arrested in the State. ‘Operation All Out’, launched by SFs to flush out militants after the NDFB-IKS militants massacred over 69 Adivasis on December 23, 2014, in which the Indian Air Force, Army, Paramilitary Forces and State Police have worked together, continues.

On June 29, 2016, the Army claimed that, in a series of joint operations with the Assam Police over the preceding days, 11 militants of the recently-floated HTF were arrested from Umrongso in Dima Hasao District and Larkercha village in West Karbi Anglong District along the Assam-Meghalaya border. HTF reportedly has close links with the KPLT and UPLA. After the arrests, Army sources disclosed that the unearthing and arrest of a majority of cadres of this outfit, has been a major setback for the nexus between these groups, which have been involved in abduction, extortion and ‘tax-collection’. However, SFs failed to arrest the kingpin of this new outfit.

Other parameters of violence also recorded slight increases as well. The year 2016 saw seven major incidents (each involving three or more fatalities) resulting in 37 deaths, as against just two such incidents, accounting for six deaths in 2015. The number of Districts from where insurgency-related fatalities were reported stood at 14 in 2016 as against 13 in 2015, out of a total of 35 Districts in the State (including three new Districts created in 2016; East Kamrup, South Kamrup and Majuli). The Districts from where incidents of killing were reported in 2016 were Kokrajhar (34), Tinsukia (12), East Karbi Anglong (12), Goalpara (7), Sonitpur (5), Chirang (4), Hailakandi (4), Udalguri (3), Darrang (1), Nagaon (1), Nalbari (1), West Karbi Anglong (1), and Jorhat (1). Further, the number of explosions reported in 2016 was 11, as against six in 2015, and resultant fatalities increased from two in 2015 to six in 2016.

On the other hand, reported incidents of abduction and extortion by militants registered a slight decline. According to Assam Police records, there were 4,704 cases of abductions registered in the State in 2016 (data till September); as against 6,103 cases in 2015. Further, there were 989 extortion-related cases registered in 2016 (data till September); as against 1,361 in 2015. Though most of the abductions were carried out by criminals, the Police records did not rule out the role of militant outfits of the region in some of the incidents. Many incidents of abduction and extortion go unreported, and these numbers are likely a gross underestimate.

Reports also indicate that many of the militant groups in the region were coming together to fight jointly for the ‘sovereignty’ of their respective imagined states. After the November 19, 2016, Pengaree attack, in which three SF personnel were killed, ULFA-I claimed that this was a “joint operation” carried out by the its cadres and four members of the Manipur-based Coordination Committee (CorCom) – comprising the Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF, the political wing of the People’s Liberation Army, PLA), United National Liberation Front (UNLF), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), and the progressive faction of PREPAK (PREPAK-Pro). The other two members of the CorCom, a conglomerate of six Manipur Valley-based militant outfits, are the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) and the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL). The same group also carried out a second attack on the Army in the Chandel District of Manipur on November 26, 2016, and injured five SF personnel. The attacks, codenamed ‘Operation Barak’, were the first instance of Meitei groups carrying out a terror strike in Assam and ULFA-I operating in Manipur. On December 3, 2016,the ‘commander-in-chief’ of ULFA-I, Paresh Baruah, clarified that “Operation Barak, named after the Barak River that flows from Manipur to Assam, is a symbol of friendship between the two States.”

ULFA-I, NDFB-IKS, KLO and the Khaplang faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-K) had also jointly formed the United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia (UNLFWSEA), a common front of militant groups in India’s Northeast region. Different ethnic armed groups (EAGs) continued with their efforts to engage in disruptive activities and had formed this united platform and they were also attempting to develop a nexus with transnational jihadi groups and Maoists, increasing the threat potential in the Assam and the wider Northeast region. A new militant outfit that seeks a separate sovereign nation for the Karbi people by segregating the portion of land from Assam, the People’s Democratic Council of Karbilongri (PDCK) was formed on October 27, 2016, and also joined UNLFWSEA. The plan to make UNLFWSEA bigger indicates a possibility of heightened militancy in the region in the foreseeable future.

An incipient threat of Islamist terrorism from within, from neighboring States, as well as from bordering countries, has exacerbated risks in Assam as well. On April 20, 2016, the Chirang Police arrested seven suspected cadres of JMB from two different areas in the Chirang District of Assam. Five of them were arrested from the Dawkanagar area; another two, including the imam (prayer leader) of Rajapara Masjid (mosque), were arrested from the Amguri area. Bodoland Territorial Administrative Districts (BTAD) IGP L.R. Bishnoi stated, “All these jihadis were operating in Assam under Bangladesh-based jihadi module JMB. They had set up a camp for imparting physical training and there were plans to impart arms training later. Two people came from West Bengal to impart training to the jihadis here. We have got their names and addresses and we are in touch with our counterparts in West Bengal to arrest them”. The JMB modules were exposed in a countrywide crackdown in the aftermath of the October 2, 2014, Burdwan blast in West Bengal.

According to SATP data, at least 36 Islamist extremists, including 24 JMB cadres, six of the Muslim Tiger Force of Assam (MTFA), one each of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA), and Indian Mujahideen (IM); and another three whose affiliations were unidentified, were arrested during the year 2016.

In a positive move, India and Bangladesh exchanged a list of wanted terrorists suspected to be hiding in both the countries during the two-day Home Secretary level talks between the two countries held in New Delhi on December 5-6, 2016. During the talks, Union Home Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi handed over a list of terrorists, including several ULFA-I leaders, along with a list of 45 militant hideouts in Bangladesh, and urged Dhaka to take immediate measures for handing over jailed Northeast militants. Dhaka on its part shared a list of home grown terrorists, particularly JMB cadres, suspected to be holed up in India. The neighbouring countries also decided to set up a joint anti-terror mechanism to combat terrorism and radical elements.

While the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) is working to seal the entire border with Bangladesh over the next two years, the State Government is also contemplating measures to harden the border areas against infiltration. On January 1, 2017, Assam Director General of Police (DGP) Mukesh Sahay revealed that around 4,000 personnel would be recruited to create a strong second line of defence to guard the international border with Bangladesh. The recruitment process is likely to be completed in financial year 2017-18. In each of the four districts bordering Bangladesh, personnel of the Force would work under a commandant, so that the District Superintendents of Police are not overburdened. Though the main responsibility of guarding the international border with Bangladesh will continue to rest with the Border Security Force (BSF), the personnel of the second line of defence would definitely improve border management, Sahay asserted.

Further, on July 27, 2016, the Central Government ruled out the possibility of holding any dialogue with the ULFA-I and NDFB-IKS. Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju stated in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Parliament) that, with regard to the ULFA faction led by Paresh Baruah, there is no formal offer of talks because the group was still engaged in anti-national activities: Moreover, Rijiju added, “The gruesome killing of innocent people by the NDFB (Songbijit) on December 23, 2014, in Assam had led to an operation which was carried out jointly by the State and Central forces. We also got support of the Government of Bhutan. Therefore, there is no question of talks with the NDFB (Songbijit) because it has carried out mass killing of innocent people.”

There were also unconfirmed reports that the NDFB-IKS had sent feelers to the Government of India seeking a ceasefire agreement and a political leader from the State recently approached the UMHA in this regard. 13 militant groups in the State are currently under Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreements with the Government, and another four groups – Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT), United People’s Democratic Solidarity (UPDS), Dilip Nunisa faction of Dima Halim Daogah (DHD-N) and Jewel Garlosa faction of DHD (DHD-J) – have signed Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) agreements with the Government. However, no new SoOs or MoSs were signed in 2016.

Nevertheless, on December 13, 2016, BTAD IGP L.R. Bishnoi offered a surrender opportunity to NDFB-IKS leaders, including its ‘army chief’ G. Bidai, saying that they would be treated well according to the Constitution if they joined the ‘mainstream. Bishnoi also disclosed that NDFB-IKS had three camps in Myanmar, where they were taking shelter, and that Bidaihad taken shelter inside the deep jungles of Bhutan, along with a few cadres. Bishnoi added that the Police had undertaken strong operations against militant outfits in the State and that, of 23 council members of NDFB-IKS four had been arrested, while the rest were taking shelter in Myanmar. Further, on January 1, 2017, State Director General of Police (DGP) Mukesh Sahay stated that dealing with militancy would remain a prime focus area of the State Police, since, while militancy was down, it was not out.

Most militant outfits in Assam strongly oppose the Union Government’s plan to grant citizenship rights to Bangladeshi Hindus. On January 2, 2017, KLO, National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) and PDCK set a deadline for Bengali and Hindi-speaking people to leave Kamatapur, Karbi-Longri and Tripura by March 31, 2017, failing which they might face a ‘bad situation’. “We strongly oppose heinous killings by Indian Army and rehabilitation programme for Bangladeshi Bengalis…. We hereby would like to notify Indian citizens (Bengali and Hindi speaking people) to quit Kamatapur, Karbi-Longri and Tripura,” an “eviction notice” signed by KLO ‘chairman’ Jiban Singh Koch, NLFT ‘organising secretary’ Seng-phul Borok and PDCK ‘chairman’ J.K. Lijang, declared.

Though the entire Northeast region has witnessed tremendous improvements in its security profile in 2016, Assam gives cause for some worry. The spike in violence as well as efforts across the region to create a unified platform for militant formations has significant potential for future mischief, and it will require sustained efforts and political will to consolidate the gains of the past years.

* Nijeesh N.
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Nepal: Enduring Dilemmas – Analysis

0
0

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

Though the insurgency has ended in Nepal, political violence continued through 2016. However, not a single insurgency-related fatality was recorded in 2016, and this has been the case since 2013, with not a single insurgency-related fatality on record. At the peak of insurgency, Nepal had seen 4,896 fatalities in 2002 alone, including 3,992 Maoists, 666 Security Force (SF) personnel and 238 civilians.

Political violence, on the other hand, has escalated since July 1, 2015, when cadres of the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF), a four party alliance of the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum Nepal (MPRF-N), Tarai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP), Sadbhavana Party (SP) and National Madhes Shadbhavana Party (NMSP), burnt copies of the preliminary draft of the new Constitution in Kathmandu, the Capital city, because it failed to incorporate their demands. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), six persons, including five civilians and one Security Force (SF) trooper, were killed and another 16, including 13 civilians and three SF personnel, were injured in violent protests across the country in 2016. In 2015, at least 57 persons, including 38 civilians and 19 SF personnel were killed and another 700, including 544 civilians and 156 SF personnel, were injured in violent protests.

Of late, on January 3, 2017, the Legislature-Parliament meeting was postponed till January 8, 2017, as the main opposition party, the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), had been obstructing the meeting since the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Centre)-led Government, registered a seven-point Constitution Amendment Bill at the Parliament Secretariat on November 29, 2016, to address the concerns of Madhes-based parties. The Constitution had been adopted in a historical step on September 20, 2015. The most significant aspect of the Amendment Bill was the proposal to leave only six Districts, Nawalparasi, Rupandehi, Kapilbastu, Dang, Banke and Bardiya, in Province 5, excluding the six hill Districts of Palpa, Arghakhanchi, Gulmi, Rukum, Rolpa and Pyuthan, to add them to Province 4. The proposed Amendment provides for two Madhes dominated Provinces: Province 2 and Province 5, as demanded in the 11-point demands of the UDMF. Province 2 was already Madhes dominated. The Bill also seeks to amend the Constitutional provisions pertaining to citizenship, provincial border, and proportional representation, among other aspects.

On December 1, 2016, CPN-UML blocked Parliamentary proceedings, terming the Constitution Amendment Bill anti-national. Further, on December 13, 2016, a joint meeting of eight political parties, including CPN-UML, Communist Party of Nepal-Marxist Leninist (CPN-ML), Rastriya Janamorcha (RJ), Nepal Workers and Peasants’ Party (NWPP), Nepal Parivar Dal (NPD) Nepa Party (NP), Janamukti Loktantrik Party (JLP) and Madhesi Samata Party (MSP), decided to continue the ‘House obstruction’ and intensify their protests until the Bill was withdrawn. Threatening not to let Parliament endorse the Constitution Amendment Bill at any cost, CPN-UML Chairman K.P. Sharma Oli, while addressing a mass rally of opposition parties at Exhibition Road in Kathmandu on January 6, 2017, asserted, “The UML will not allow through Parliament any proposal which is against the national interest. Rest assured that the national interest will not be let down as long as the UML is there.”

Separately, the agitating Madhesi parties to meet other demands had expressed their own demands. National Madhes Socialist Party (NMSP) General Secretary Keshav Jha, expressed serious dissatisfaction over the possible number of local units in the Terai, declaring, on December 20, 2016, “The Madhes-based parties can settle for at least 46 percent of local units in the Terai Districts. We are not saying the number should be directly proportionate with the population. We can consider four to five percent for geography; otherwise population should be the major factor for fixing the number of local units.” Worse, warning of secessionist forces that would rise in the country if the Constitution Amendment move and federalism failed, SP Chairperson Rajendra Mahato observed, on January 1, 2017, “As Constitution amendment is a must to address the concerns of Madhesi communities, it must happen at any cost for the welfare of the large community (sic).” Further, on January 3, 2017, Mahato added “The delineation of the provinces as it is in the Constitution works against the will of the Madhesi and indigenous people here. The UML has been a prime hindrance in our attempt to correct it through an amendment. It is only fair to kick the UML out from the Madhes, since it has been restricting the Madhesis in their own ground.”

Meanwhile, at a time when the main opposition party, CPN-UML, is piling pressure on the Government to withdraw the Bill, Prime Minister Pusha Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda on December 7, 2016, argued, “The UML will realize its mistake of starting protests against the Bill that seeks to unify hills, mountains and plains; and further strengthens the national unity and geographical indivisibleness.” Reaffirming the Government’s stand, Deputy Prime Minister Bimalendra Nidhi added on December 30, 2016, “The UML stance on the Constitution Amendment Bill is against democracy, the parliamentary system and constitutional norms. I would like to urge UML to back down from its stance.”

In order to end the ongoing Parliamentary stalemate, Speaker Onsari Gharti Magar gave a three-day ultimatum on December 29, 2016, to secure a consensus, disclosing, “The parties have informed me that they are close to consensus. I have given them a time of three days so that they can have more serious discussions.” The Speaker also warned that the Parliament would follow set procedures to resume its business if the parties failed to clear the way. Moreover, in order to ensure that the Legislative applied its collective wisdom in the formulation of legislation on the basis of the principle of separation of powers, the Supreme Court (SC), on January 2, 2017, cleared the decks for the Government to endorse the Constitution Amendment Bill.

While no consensus could be reached within the Speaker’s deadline, the SC’s ruling has cleared the path to take the Bill forward in the House. On January 8, 2017, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Center)-led Government tabled the Constitution Amendment Bill amid protests from opposition party lawmakers. Earlier, Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-Maoist Center and UDMF, during a tripartite meeting held at the Prime Minister’s residence in Kathmandu on January 5, 2017, consequently decided to table the Constitution Amendment Bill at the Parliament meeting scheduled for January 8, 2017. The parties also agreed that the Government would receive the Local Bodies Restructuring Commission (LBRC)’s report at the earliest and move ahead for local, provincial and federal elections.

The holding of three elections – local, provincial and federal – by December 2017, as envisaged in the new Constitution, is another challenge confronting Nepal. The last time local elections were held in the country was some 19 years ago, in 1997. Since then, the local bodies – Village Development Committees (VDCs), municipalities, District Development Committees (DDCs) and Metropolitan Councils – have been without people’s representatives. Significantly, on January 6, 2017, the Local Bodies Restructuring Commission (LBRC) submitted its 1,718-page report in 16 volumes, to Minister of Local Development Hitraj Pandey in the presence of Prime Minister Dahal, recommending four Metropolitan Cities – Kathmandu, Chitwan, Lalitpur and Kaski Districts – 12 Sub-Metropolitan Cities, 241 municipalities, 462 village units and 719 local units with 6,553 VDCs. The report was a milestone as far as the implementation of the Constitution and federalism was concerned. The commission, which has two more months left do its work before it expires on March 13, 2017, will prepare blueprints of special clusters and autonomous zones according to the Terms of Reference (ToR) given by the Government.

Another dilemma for the present Government is the issue of transitional justice. Resolving outstanding transitional justice issues through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) was one of Dahal’s proclaimed priorities when he was sworn as Prime Minister on August 3, 2016. TRC had started recording testimonies regarding insurgency-era rights’ violations and crimes from April 17, 2016, at District Peace Committee Offices in all 75 Districts, and has received 57,753 complaints from victims of the insurgency. Similarly, CIEDP, the commission formed to investigate conflict-related disappearances cases, which started receiving complaints on April 14, 2016, has received over 2,800 complaints from those whose kin had disappeared during the 10-year insurgency. Herculean tasks lie ahead for TRC and CIEDP, to establish the truth, investigate violations of human rights and make recommendations for action, as the terms of the transitional mechanisms expire on February 10, 2017. Moreover, on November 26, 2016, TRC Chairman Surya Kiran Gurung and CIEDP Chairman Lokendra Mallick accused the Government of weakening the two bodies by not providing legal and financial support. TRC and CIEDP were formed on February 10, 2015, in the spirit of the Interim Constitution of 2007 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of November 12, 2006, to probe instances of serious violations of human rights and find the status of those who were disappeared in the course of the armed conflict between the State and the then Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) from February 13, 1996, to November 21, 2006.

Earlier, at a time when the victims and international human rights agencies were urging the Government to bring the Transitional Justice Act on par with international standards, five Maoist parties – New Force Nepal led by Baburam Bhattarai, CPN-Revolutionary Maoist led by Mohan Baidya, CPN (Maoist) led by Matrika Yadav and Revolutionary Communist Party Nepal led by Mani Chandra Thapa, besides then Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal – in a joint statement on April 21, 2016, called on the then KP Sharma-led Government to scrap conflict-era cases, claiming that such cases violated the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) of 2006. Further, on May 19, 2016, ten Maoist parties, at a joint convention in Kathmandu, united to form a new force under former rebel commander Pushpa Kamal Dahal, to give birth to what they decided to call the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Centre). Addressing the function organized to announce the unification, Chairman Dahal declared, “The days of conspiracy against the revolutionary agenda of republic, secularism and proportional representation are over. This unification is a message loud and clear that the days of people’s victory are here. This unification guarantees that the transitional justice mechanisms will function in line with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.”

The Dahal-led Government is facing a possible crisis, as the Constitution Amendment Bill requires at least a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament. As the main opposition party CPN-UML and seven other parties object to the Amendment, it is uncertain whether the Bill can secure passage through Parliament. Moreover, despite the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms, impunity for violations committed both during the conflict and in the post-conflict era remains entrenched in the country’s political culture. It remains to be seen whether Nepal is able to reconcile the demands of political stability and continuity, on the one hand, and of justice for war era excesses, on the other, to establish an enduring constitutional and political order that will meet the demands of equity and governance.

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


India And Vietnam: Strengthening Bilateral Relations – Analysis

0
0

By Amruta Karambelkar*

2016 has been an important year in India-Vietnam relations, characterised by several high-level bilateral visits. Prime Minister Modi paid a visit to Vietnam in September 2016, preceded Defence Minister Parrikar’s visit in June 2016.

New Delhi has recently hosted two important leaders from Vietnam: Defence Minister General Ngo Xuan Lich in and Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, the chairperson of the National Assembly, in the first and second week of December 2016, respectively. The former visit signifies the continuation of the steadfast bilateral security cooperation; the latter was aimed at deepening legislative cooperation between the two countries. New Delhi appears to be pivoting on its traditional friend, Vietnam, as it actively expands its role in Southeast Asia. Similarly, Hanoi is focusing on its relationship with India as a potential roadblock to Beijing’s aggression.

Defence and Energy

India and Vietnam reached a milestone in 2013 when India offered a US$ 100million credit line and agreed to train Vietnamese sailors in submarine operations. Prime Minister Modi raised the credit line five times during his visit. Right before the General Ngo’s visit, India let the Vietnamese ambassador visit the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier under construction at the Cochin Shipyard. Ngo’s visit saw the Indian Air Force (IAF) ink an agreement to train Vietnamese fighter pilots in Su-30 operations. By way of the IAF-VAF agreement, India has also expanded its military cooperation from naval to air.

Both India and Vietnam largely use Russian hardware, and India is experienced in operating and maintaining Russian platforms. In recent years Vietnam has purchased Kilo-class submarines and SU-30 fighter jets as part of its ongoing force modernisation programme. In view of that, General Ngo met with India Inc at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to discuss bilateral cooperation in the defence industry.

As Vietnam has been actively modernising its military over the past few years, Indian companies have the opportunity to develop Vietnam’s defence industries by setting up production facilities in the country. The exploration of such possibilities could lead to a bilateral security enmeshment. The Modi government has paved the way for greater private participation in defence manufacturing. The Look East Policy in its third decade (renamed the Act East Policy) seeks a greater role in Southeast Asia and one of the ways to do this would be through wider and deeper security ties. Defence manufacturing or servicing would be a step in that direction. Nguyen also backed India’s Act East Policy and appreciated Vietnam’s role, as envisaged by India, in it.

India and Vietnam signed several agreements during Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan’s visit, notably one on cooperation in civil nuclear energy. She encouraged Indian oil companies to explore oil and gas blocks in Vietnam’s continental shelf. Since the past few years, Vietnam has sought to develop its civil nuclear capabilities. As an emerging economy, Vietnam’s energy needs are growing. Vietnam has been actively seeking a foreign presence in its claimed portion of the South China Sea, thereby looking to make investor countries a stakeholder in the maritime dispute. It hopes that other countries, by way of protecting their assets in the South China Sea, would be concerned with the region’s security, which could serve as a speed-breaker to China’s aggression. Previously Vietnam had granted exploration rights to ONGC in the strategically important blocks in the disputed waters.

Political Cooperation

In March 2016, Nguyen was elected as the chairperson of the National Assembly, making her the first woman to serve in this position. She was re-elected to the politburo that year, and her ranking in the politburo hierarchy makes her the third most powerful person in Vietnamese politics.

India and Vietnam elevated their relations to a ‘comprehensive strategic partnership’ during PM Modi’s visit to Vietnam in September 2016. Both countries appear to have institutionalised their legislative relations. Chairperson Nguyen was heading a delegation of Vietnamese legislators, who also attended sessions of the Indian Parliament as observers. An agreement was signed between the Lok Sabha and Vietnam’s National Assembly. Prime Minister Modi expressed the need to institutionalise an exchange programme between young parliamentarians from both the countries.

Conclusion

While India’s defence relations with Vietnam have remained steady, the chairperson’s visit is noteworthy since it would facilitate inter-legislative contact. All the political parties in India have unanimity over India’s policy on Vietnam. Nguyen must have realised this when she met the opposition members in the Indian Parliament. Similarly, political unanimity over India in the National Assembly of Vietnam would be crucial in a region that is witnessing strategic opaqueness.

In September 2016 in Hanoi, PM Modi in his joint press statement said that maritime territorial disputes should be resolved peacefully and according to international law, with reference to the South China Sea dispute in which Vietnam is one of the claimants. Vietnam, like other Southeast Asian claimants, is canvassing political support for its stance. India, like other major stakeholders, is interested in the stability and security of the South China Sea. As an emerging economic and naval power, India has projected itself a credible player in Southeast Asia. In a region that has historically witnessed political polarisation caused by great power rivalries, India, without such historical baggage or hegemonic ambitions, makes for a viable alternative.

*Amruta Karambelkar
Research Scholar, Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, JNU

10 Killed In Attacks On Sinai Security Checkpoints

0
0

Nine policemen and one civilian were killed in two separate attacks on security checkpoints in north Sinai on Monday, interior ministry said.

The ministry of interior said in a statement that 20 militants tried to storm in al-Matafi checkpoint in al-Arish using rocket-propelled grenades and a car bomb.

Security forces however were able to detonate the bomb before the car reached the checkpoint, killing five militants and injuring three others.

“Security also dismantled explosive devices that have been implanted at the checkpoint,” the statement read.
blank

The attack left seven policemen and one civilian killed. Six policemen and six civilians were also injured in the attack and were transferred to a hospital for treatment.

The interior ministry added that another terrorist group attempted to carry out an attack at el-Masaeid checkpoint in al-Arish and fired at security who managed to force them to flee. A police conscript was killed during the attack.

Security forces are combing the area in search of the assailants. No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attacks.

In November, Daesh claimed responsibility for an attack on an Egyptian military checkpoint in northern Sinai that killed 12 soldiers.

Following the ouster of former president Mohamed Mursi, who hailed from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sinai Peninsula has become a restive area with a number of attacks targeting security personnel, police officer, as well as high-ranking judges.

Original source

Hydropower In China Impacts Flow Of Mekong River

0
0

A study led by researchers from Aalto University in Finland reveals that the hydropower projects in China have caused major river flow changes to the Mekong River since the year 2011.

An analysis of river flows in Northern Thailand indicates that the hydropower operations considerably increased dry season flows and decreased wet season flows. Furthermore, the study shows that the dry season flows have also become increasingly variable.

The river flow impacts were largest in 2014 after completion of the Nuozhadu dam, the largest hydropower project in the Mekong Basin, and the impacts were observable over 2000 km downstream in Cambodia. The hydropower operations dampened the Mekong River’s annual flood, which is a key driver of the ecological productivity of the river.

“The river flow changes are feared to affect the ecological productivity of the river and thus the livelihoods, economy and food security of the downstream people. In particular the impacts on fishing are a major concern because fish and other aquatic animals play a major role in the local and regional economy and food supply,” said researcher Timo Räsänen.

He continued: “However, the ecological and social consequences of the hydropower operations are not yet well understood and more research is needed. The downstream countries are also building hydropower stations and the cumulative impacts need further attention. Therefore the research highlights the importance of strong transboundary cooperation between upstream and downstream countries for understanding and mitigating the negative consequences.”

The Mekong River is one of the world’s largest rivers and it provides livelihoods and food security for millions of people. The energy demand is growing rapidly in the region, and in recent years China has built large hydropower projects in the upper reaches of the Mekong River. This has raised concerns about the potentially harmful impacts on the river and downstream countries. Despite these concerns the upstream hydropower companies have not shared publicly information about the expected or observed downstream impacts of the hydropower development.

The research article was published in Journal of Hydrology in December 2016.

US Life Expectancy Drops First Time Since 1993 – OpEd

0
0

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a federal agency, has reported the remarkable news that U.S. life expectancy has dropped for the first time since 1993. According to Mortality in the United States, 2015 (NCHS Data Brief No. 267, December 2016):

  • Life expectancy for the U.S. population in 2015 was 78.8 years, a decrease of 0.1 year from 2014.
  • The age-adjusted death rate increased 1.2% from 724.6 deaths per 100,000 standard population in 2014 to 733.1 in 2015.
  • The 10 leading causes of death in 2015 remained the same as in 2014. Age-adjusted death rates increased for eight leading causes and decreased for one.

The one death rate which improved was for cancer. So, we are “winning” that war, at least relatively speaking.

The entire decrease was for life expectancy at birth. Life expectancy at age 65 was unchanged from the previous year. In other words, children and working-age people are bearing the burden of this decline.

However, the worst (by far) contributor to the decline was an increase in deaths attributable to Alzheimer’s disease, which (although not described in the data brief) is concentrated in people 65 and older. These deaths accounted for almost half (47 percent) of the decline in age-adjusted mortality.

The only way this terrible increase in the burden of Alzheimer’s disease could not have reduced life expectancy at age 65 is if the elderly have enjoyed significant improvement in outcomes for cancer and other diseases.

The next worst contributor to the decline was “unintentional injuries,” which accounted for just under one-third of the increase in the death rate, and must almost certainly be concentrated among those under 65. Suicides also increased significantly, although they do not account for a large absolute share of deaths. Researchers often include both unintentional injuries and suicides as related outcomes for people suffering mental illness and homelessness.

Given the extreme safety of our modern American environment, it would be remarkable if the increase in deaths due to unintentional injuries were concentrated among mentally healthy people. The data brief suggests the harmful behaviors that have been observed increasing among white men are also happening in the rest of the population, because the decline in life expectancy happened for both sexes and all races.

This article was published by The Beacon.

2017: Palestine’s Three Bleak Anniversaries – OpEd

0
0

By Richard Falk*

Increasingly the Palestinians seem doomed to become subjects, or at best second-class citizens, in their own homeland. Israeli expansionism, US unconditional support, and UN impotence are combining to create dismal prospects for Palestinian self-determination and a negotiated peace that is sensitive to the rights and grievances of both Palestinians and Israelis.

Recalling three notable anniversaries that will be observed in 2017 may help us to understand better how this distressing Palestinian narrative has unfolded over the course of the past 100 years. Perhaps these remembrances might even encourage the rectification of past failures and encourage flagging efforts to find a way forward even at this belated hour. The most promising initiatives are now associated with a growing global solidarity movement dedicated to achieving a just peace for both peoples.

But for now neither the UN nor traditional diplomacy seems to have much leverage over the play of social and political forces that lies at the core of the Palestinian struggle. Only the non-violent resistance of the Palestinians to their prolonged ordeal of occupation and transnational civil society militancy seem to have any capacity to exert positive leverage over the status quo and to sustain hope.

1917: On November 02, 1917 the then British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour was persuaded to send a letter to Baron Lionel Rothschild, a leading Zionist advocate in Britain, expressing support for the aspirations of the movement.

The key language of the letter is as follows: “His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

An obvious initial question is why Britain was moved to take such an initiative in the midst of World War I. The most immediate explanation is that the war was not going well for the British, nurturing the belief among British leaders that siding with the Zionist movement would encourage Jews throughout Europe to back the Allied cause, especially in Russia and Germany.

A second motivation was to further British interests in Palestine, which Lloyd George, the then British prime minister, regarded as strategically vital to protect the overland trade route to India as well as safeguard access to the Suez Canal.

The Balfour Declaration was controversial from the day of its issuance, even among some Jews. For one thing, such a commitment by the British foreign office was a purely colonialist undertaking without the slightest effort to consider the sentiments of the predominantly Arab population living in Palestine at the time (Jews were less than 10 per cent of the population in 1917) or to take account of rising international support for the right of self-determination enjoyed by all peoples.

Prominent British Jews led by Edward Montagu, the British secretary of state for India at the time, opposed the Declaration, fearing that it would fan the flames of anti-Semitism, especially in the cities of Europe and North America. Beyond this, the Arabs felt betrayed as Balfour’s initiative was seen both as breaking wartime promises to the Arabs of post-war political independence in exchange for joining the fight against the Ottomans. It also signalled future troubles arising between the Zionist promotion of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the indigenous Arab population.

It should be acknowledged that even the Zionist leaders were not altogether happy with the Balfour Declaration. There were deliberate ambiguities embedded in its language. For instance, the Zionists would have preferred the word “the” rather than “a” to precede “national home”. Also the pledge to protect the status quo of non-Jews was seen as inviting trouble in the future, although as it turned out this assumption of colonialist responsibility was never acted upon.

Finally, the Zionists received support for a national home, not a sovereign state, although backroom British talk agreed that a Jewish state might emerge in the future, but only after Jews became a majority in Palestine.

It is worth this backward glance at the Balfour Declaration in order to realise how colonial ambition morphed into liberal guilt and humanitarian empathy for the plight of the European Jews after World War II, while creating an unending nightmare of disappointment and oppression for the Palestinians.

1947: After World War II with strife in Palestine rising to intense levels and the British Empire in free fall, Britain relinquished its mandatory role in Palestine and gave the fledgling UN the job of deciding what to do.

The UN created a high-level group to shape a proposal, resulting in a set of recommendations that featured the partition of Palestine into two communities, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. Jerusalem was internationalized, with neither community exercising governing authority nor entitled to claim the city as part of its national identity. The UN report was adopted as an official proposal in the form of UN General Assembly Resolution 181.

The Zionist movement accepted UN Resolution 181, while the Arab governments and the representatives of the Palestinian people rejected it, claiming it encroached upon their rights of self-determination and was grossly unfair. At the time, Jews formed less than 35 per cent of the population of Palestine, yet were given more than 55 per cent of the land.

As is widely appreciated, a war ensued, with the armies of the neighboring Arab countries entering Palestine being defeated by well-trained and armed Zionist militias. Israel won the war, ending with control over 78 per cent of Palestine at the time an armistice was reached, dispossessing over 700,000 Palestinians and destroying several hundred Palestinian villages.

This experience is the darkest hour experienced by the Palestinians, known among them as the Nakba, or catastrophe.

1967: The third anniversary of 2017 is that associated with the 1967 War, which led to another military defeat of Israel’s Arab neighbors and the Israeli occupation of the whole of Palestine, including the entire city of Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli victory in 1967 changed the strategic equation dramatically. Israel, previously viewed as a strategic burden for the United States, was suddenly appreciated as a strategic partner entitled to unconditional geopolitical support.

In its famous Resolution 242, the UN Security Council unanimously decided on 22 November 1967 that the withdrawal of Israeli forces should be negotiated, with certain agreed border modifications, in the context of reaching a peace agreement that included a fair resolution of the dispute pertaining to Palestinian refugees living throughout the region.

Over the following 50 years UN Security Council Resolution 242 has not been implemented. On the contrary, Israel has further encroached on the Occupied Palestinian Territories through its extensive settlements and related infrastructure, and the point has been reached where few believe that an independent Palestinian state co-existing with Israel is any longer feasible or even desirable.

These three anniversaries reveal three stages in the steadily worsening Palestinian situation. They also reveal the inability of the UN or international diplomacy to solve the problem of how Palestinians and Jews should share the land.

It is too late to reverse altogether these strong currents of history, but the challenge remains acute to find a humane outcome that somehow allows these two peoples to live together or in separate political communities.

Let us fervently hope that a satisfactory solution is found before another anniversary commands our attention.

*Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He was also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Visit his blog.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images