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

Why Is Prisoner Swap Between Hamas And Israel A Sensitive Issue? – OpEd

0
0

By Adnan Abu Amer*

The issue of Israeli soldiers captured by Hamas in Gaza still has momentum in Israel, with various predictions of whether the two sides will get into agreement for a prisoner exchange or if they will postpone it, especially after the Ezzedine Al-Qassam Brigades — the Hamas military wing — broadcast a video of a captured Israeli soldier. In return, Israel has implemented an even harsher regime and series of punishments against Palestinian prisoners.

We need to understand the Israeli decision-making mechanisms when it comes to prisoner exchange discussions; how the Israeli government and elites think; what the position of captured soldiers’ families is; and how civil society puts pressure on the Israeli government in this regard.

A few days ago, the Israeli government held its first public meeting to discuss this issue since the capture of Israeli soldiers by Hamas during the 2014 offensive against Gaza. The meeting coincided with an increase in calls by the soldiers’ families for their return along with accusations that the government is failing in this matter, as well as the video broadcast of the Israeli prisoners in Gaza. The latter was only hours before the convening of the Israeli meeting.

Prisoner exchanges between Palestinians and Israelis are nothing new; they stretch back to the beginning of the conflict in 1948. The last deal was in 2011, when Israel released more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners with lengthy sentences in exchange for Sergeant Gilad Shalit, who had been captured by Hamas in 2006.

Most Israeli analyses show that although exchange deals end the suffering of captives’ families after years of painful waiting, they also reveal the heavy price that Israel has to pay, which could threaten its strategic goals. The natural result of repeated deals with armed groups is the strengthening of their positions domestically and abroad, and growing popularity.

At the same time, if Israel does not work to bring back its soldiers, dead or alive, it will look as if it does not care about them. When Israel signs an exchange agreement, it is natural that the other side is considered to have come out of it as the winner. Thus, while there may be a humanitarian public relations benefit for Israel to sacrifice a lot in order to bring its soldiers home, it may be interpreted politically as acceding to the demands of armed groups, who may raise the required price for the exchange.

Statements have been made by senior Israeli officials demanding exchange agreements. “The moral message, in my opinion, is greater than any other consideration, including the price,” said former Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz. “It would be an even higher price if the state gives up on one of its sons, because in this case, they might also give up on it!”

According to ex-Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who played an active role in the last exchange deal as Shalit’s superior officer, it was important for him to be able to look his soldiers and their families in the eyes and tell them that the government and army had done all they could to bring them back. That’s why he asked ministers to agree to the deal.

For former Prime Minister Ehud Barak — the army’s most decorated soldier — there is a moral and ethical commitment to bring soldiers home. He has been participating in negotiations and agreements for the release of prisoners for 22 years and believes that it is prohibited to stop doing so.

Barak’s predecessor as Prime Minister, Golda Meir, said in her biography: “The issue of captured soldiers is one of the most complex problems I’ve faced in my life after the 1973 war. I was driving my car in the streets of Tel Aviv, looking out the windows to the homes and I wondered: which of these homes have missing sons? I wouldn’t dare look into the faces of their families. I swear I was ready to do anything to bring them back.” From this, we can see how resistance groups can use the card of Israeli public opinion, while taking into account the marital and ethnic background of those they capture.

Despite the changes that have taken place in how Israel addresses the issue of soldiers captured by resistance groups, it can be said that there are limitations it has tried to establish in the case of Palestinian prisoners. However, it is often forced to abandon such limits under the pressure of the steps taken by Palestinian resistance groups to get round them. The issue of captured Israeli soldiers is one in which Israel has given in to the demands of the Palestinians. Although Israeli leaders continue to stress their radical positions in this regard, it is clear that they offer considerable concessions, even if they are incompatible with the official discourse. Historically, there is a vast difference between government rhetoric and behaviour in this matter. Nevertheless, prisoner swaps remain a very sensitive issue.

There are a number of factors that influence Israeli decisions on prisoner exchange deals, including public opinion. Some will be visible in the coming days with regard to the release of the current batch of soldiers who were captured in Gaza.

For a start, it is a strategic imperative to get soldiers back to Israel. The government and senior Israel Defence Forces (IDF) officers insist that they will do everything possible to avoid their soldiers staying in captivity. This is not propaganda; they mean it, because soldiers on active service know that the state will work to bring them back, no matter what the circumstances. Thus, the theory goes, more will be motivated to join combat units.

Then there is the role of public opinion. This is an important aspect to consider, not only due to the nature of the political system, which gives proportionate weight to the public will, but also because there are important dimensions in play, given that soldiers’ families know that the government will work hard to bring them back if they are captured. Reassuring the public about this is a key element in Israel’s promotion of the IDF as “the people’s army”. The media has a key role to play in how decision-makers react to and mould public opinion.

Historical precedents also play an important role in the positions of ruling elites regarding exchange deals, both in terms of encouraging such deals or taking a negative view of them. A well-known example of this was the capture of pilot Ron Arad in Lebanon in the mid-eighties. There was an almost certain possibility to have him released had Israel only responded to the demands set by Lebanon’s Amal militia at the time. He is officially listed as “missing in action” but has been presumed dead since the nineties. Arad’s case supports the argument of those who believe that the Israeli government should pay any price to get captured service personnel released.

The position taken by Israel’s security services is also critical. Their role is pivotal due to the nature of the ruling political elites. It is important to point out that senior security officials do not have a unified position about exchange agreements; their influence will vary, depending on the political climate at the time of any exchange agreement.

Nevertheless, what is certain is that prisoner exchange deals with the Palestinian factions in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are influenced more by the internal security agency, Shin Bet, because Palestinian prisoners who are released will return to the occupied territories. Shin Bet is responsible for tackling all resistance activities within the territories, thus its position is very important. Traditionally, it is believed that the heads of Shin Bet tend to reject prisoner exchange deals, justifying their stance by claiming that the danger lies in the image held by Palestinians about Israel and what they regard as Israeli surrender to Palestinian demands.

Shin Bet points out that 48 per cent of prisoners released in the 1985 exchange deal, and who returned to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were rearrested on charges of engaging in further resistance acts. This also happened with prisoners released in the last prisoner exchange deal in 2011 whom Israel rearrested, especially those living in the West Bank. That is why the former head of Shin Bet, Yuval Diskin, opposed the list of demands set by Hamas in the deal.

The relative strength or weakness of Israel’s prime ministers is also a factor for consideration. It is interesting that the three most important prisoner exchange deals were agreed with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in 1985, during the premiership of right-winger Menachem Begin; the 2004 Hezbollah deal during right-wing Ariel Sharon’s period in office; and the agreement with Hamas in 2011 under current — and very right-wing — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The latter’s predecessor Ehud Olmert did not agree to a deal and was not strong enough to make a decision.

Finally, when Israel signs an exchange deal, it demonstrates that it is willing to waive its rights and give in to all of the demands set by the groups who capture its soldiers. Such deals may affect Israel’s deterrent power and encourage its enemies to try to capture more people. It may well be, therefore, that Israel decides to call their bluff and thus risk the lives of any and all of its soldiers who get taken prisoner.

*The author is a Palestinian academic. (This article was first published in Arabic at Aljazeera.net, 8 January 08, 2017 and was translated and republished by MEMO)


BuzzFeed Fiasco Shows Us Why Trust In Institutions Is Dying – OpEd

0
0

I was almost planning to turn my laptop off on a freezing English winter night, when the C4 hit my phone. A colleague texted me asking if I was checking Twitter at that moment. BuzzFeed apparently did some clickbait, and dumped raw, uncorroborated, third hand HUMINT (human intelligence) data with a nudge nudge wink wink “see what you make of it” type caveat, about Donald Trump. This material included a lurid tryst with a bevy of Moscow maidens apparently recorded by secret devices. BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith spouted some neuron altering, circuit frying justification on why he chose to go ahead in publishing this “dossier”, because apparently Americans “should decide for themselves.”

(Although, the cynic in me is fairly certain they wouldn’t touch something, much less publish it, if it was in reverse, like another foreign country actively supporting Hillary, for example).

But that’s all beside the point. I don’t know which school of journalism Buzzfeed Ben went to, but in my first Masters degree, there was substantial instruction on the ethics of journalism and its implications. Dumping raw unverified data, especially HUMINT, with glaring inaccuracies that can be quite easily verified (and which make the entire report look flawed) crosses a lot of ethical boundaries.

The context is this: the report in question has been in the deepest corners of the web since last year, but there’s a reason why Hillary’s campaign opposition researchers, and other established media organisations didn’t touch it. And that’s not just because of its terrible syntax errors and glaring spelling mistakes. It is, at this stage, too good to be true.

A cursory Google search can point out that fake news includes not just hoaxes but deliberately publishing propaganda and disinformation (дезинформация), and using social media to drive web traffic and amplify its effect. Clickbait, as opposed to satire, seeks to mislead, rather than entertain readers for financial or other gain. In true spirit of BuzzFeed, therefore, I ask the readers, to judge whether BuzzFeed is fake news or not, and whether they should be sued out of business, like Gawker. To call it “hot info” is the understatement of the century. If this information about an American leader were true, it would be frankly unprecedented. At the same time, the information is also extremely suspect.

Any Intel researcher worth his salt would find this report, for lack of a better word, “problematic”. (For some authoritative analyses see Mark Galeotti’s and Matt Tait’s who have both offered up nuanced and sober perspectives). A key point of their general summation is that respectable news media has always avoided using, let alone dumping, unverifiable HUMINT for a reason. It is because there are always assertions which can never be proved, barring anecdotal and circumstantial corroboration, which takes months and years to build. Andrew Wordsworth told the Wall Street Journal that the dossier was “not convincing at all” and was “too good to be true”.

First of all, the report states that the Russians were actively helping Donald Trump win the 2016 election for the last five years. The “perverted” incident, which is on page two of the dossier, happened in 2012, at the height of the Reset between Obama and Medvedev, and in a rare time of reasonable rapprochement between Russia and US. It seems highly unlikely and farfetched, that Russia, or anyone for that matter, was cultivating a Trump presidency at that point of time.

No one had an inclination that he might run, or indeed win. In fact, the global order was vastly different, the Arab Spring still didn’t turn to an Arab winter, uncontrolled migration to Europe had not reached the tipping-point that it has now, and European leaders who were later toppled by a 2016 domino-effect were firmly in their seats. To assume that Russian federal security services would be that farsighted would be to impose the power of superhuman clairvoyance on them.

The second point against the dossier is another typical Russian peculiarity. Those who watch Russia, will know, how paranoid average Russians are about dishing out secrets. Russia has historically been a relatively repressive state, and Russians are naturally right not to trust anyone with information, which, if traced back to them, would cause them immense trouble.

The third reason why the dossier is so suspect, is something which has Kissinger pointed out. Great Powers do not behave in such a cavalier manner with their peer rivals, risking the future prospects of a détente. Without doubt Russia would have collected information on Trump, but it would have been mostly on his business deals. Without doubt Russia tried to influence American election. But it would be naïve to think America didn’t try to influence any other state’s domestic politics or eavesdrop and collect intelligence, on her allies. This is not Whataboutism, it is not Putin Apologia, it is not a blame game. It is a simple statement of fact about the reality of Great Power politics. Putin, or Russian Intel, couldn’t possibly have any idea that Trump would win, with nearly all internal and external assessments showing massive Hillary victory.

Which brings us back to the story. The key revelation of this entire saga has not been BuzzFeed’s partisanship, but the unreliability of new media. Press, like Academia, is considered one of the gatekeepers of a democratic society, and is supposed to constantly self-critique and scrutinise and keep its standards high. It is not supposed to succumb to a clickbaiting game of one upmanship or partisan hackery. It is not the job of the Press to be society’s moral arbiter, or set agendas. It is the duty of the Press to filter noise, and produce truth, verified and corroborated and backed up by evidence, simply because everyone is not qualified to understand the nuances of every possible subject under the sun.

Trust is earned through integrity. The reason there is a dying trust in Western institutions and lamentable death of expertise, is because the gatekeepers in press and academia have become partisan. As mentioned above, any trained journalist would know the ethical and logical implications of a raw unverified dump of data on the public, and how any simple evidence to the contrary would make Trump immune from any further and even legitimate criticism, and how irresponsible it would be to polarise an already divided populace.

Instead what we see is a section of utterly unqualified bloggers and celebrities and Twitter “experts” latching on to every bit of confirmation bias they can lay their hands on. We see cultish devotion to conventional wisdom, a craven brainless urge to parrot unsubstantial but catchy talking points and mutual back pats. One of the fundamental pillars of Western philosophy — a healthy, cynical skepticism and an urge to question narratives — seems to be in remission. The same people who actively supported Wikileaks and opposed Bush 43, are now reversed. Those who supported a Reset with Russia, now see Putin’s hand in everything. It’s almost like a pole is switched overnight, simply because Hillary lost and Trump won. Cultism and partisanship is another way of showing faith, and we all know what happens when faith and emotion triumph over reason, logic, prudence and evidence.

I don’t agree with Donald Trump and most of the things he says. But I agree with him that BuzzFeed is garbage, and new media now has almost zero credibility. Gawker perished because it forgot that with power comes responsibility, and news is not just a 4 Chan banter room. If BuzzFeed follows in the footsteps of Gawker’s fate, it would only be logical.

This article appeared at  Quillette

India: Mind The Gender Gap – Analysis

0
0

By Priyanka Chaturvedi and Vidisha Mishra

During the 2014 national and State elections, for the first time women’s safety and empowerment were topics of debate, marking a significant shift in how gender concerns are viewed by the political class as well as by voters in India. In the two years since, policy focus and public scrutiny on persistent gender inequality has grown exponentially. In 2015, 194 member states, including India, adopted the Sustainable Development Goals. Gender equality is one of the 17 goals to “transform our world”. This year, India ratified the Paris Agreement. The direct link between empowering women and alleviating poverty, increasing productivity, and combating climate change is well-recognised. However, the lack of targeted resources is often stated to be the biggest reason behind the sluggish progress in furthering the gender agenda. Therefore, it is important that India’s budget priorities reflect its commitment to invest in women and girls.

Last year, the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Gender Gap Report ranked India 87 in terms of gender equality in economy, education, health, and political representation. Women’s declining labour participation, under-representation in Parliament, skewed child sex ratio, and prevalent gender-based violence are recognised challenges. To bridge these gaps, India formally adopted Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) in 2005. The rationale behind GRB is that policy outcomes are not as gender-neutral as commonly believed, and can reinforce or exacerbate exiting hierarchies. Hence, gender budgeting initiatives aim to integrate critical gender concerns into fiscal policies and administration to address disparities.

Every annual budget since 2005 has included a statement that lists out two parts. There is Part A, which reflects ‘Women Specific Schemes’, namely, those which have 100 per cent allocation for women, and Part B, which reflects ‘Pro Women Schemes’, namely, where at least 30 per cent of the allocation is for women. Over the years, India has stood out for its implementation of gender budgeting, and with the Ministry of Finance (MoF) playing the central role, it has managed to successfully institutionalise the concept at both the national and State levels (16 States have embraced the exercise). Studies substantiate the positive link between GRB and improved indicators for women. For instance, a recent International Monetary Fund study found that States that employ GRB also show better female to male school enrolment ratios. Further, it was observed that GRB also has a positive impact on infrastructure spending.

Decentralisation of funding

Despite the successes, better implementation and planning are needed to ensure that these policies percolate right down to the last woman in the most remote parts of the country. In recent years, allocations have either remained stagnant or have been on the decline. For instance, Budget 2016-17 was widely considered to be a mixed bag for women. While the Ministry of Women and Child Development and National Commission for Women saw nominal increases, the scheme meant for implementing the Domestic Violence Act did not receive any allocation. Further, there was a decline in the number of ministries and departments that fall under GRB. The budget also initiated the decentralisation of funding in GRB, thus shifting the onus for budgeting and implementation from the Central Ministry to State counterparts. While this did empower the States to come up with women-specific policies as per their respective challenges, the obvious downside was the risk that States could choose to not prioritise gender in their budgeting. In this way, the intent of universalising the process, so that it equally benefits women in all States, was lost in the pragmatism of the move.

For it to be truly effective, GRB must be viewed as an essential tool to tackle societal inequality that hinders progress instead of a symbolic exercise for pleasing the emerging women constituency. So far, GRB has focussed on identifying schemes that are exclusively dedicated to women. While this focus is imperative, it has restricted benefits without the incorporation of a gender lens across all welfare schemes. Sectors such as energy, urban development, food security, water supply and sanitation continue to operate in silos, despite having causal interrelationships with women’s empowerment. Policies carried out by these sectors do have a different impact on men and women. Therefore, moving forward, every budget presents the opportunity to mainstream gender in the policy environment, and demonstrate the commitment to include and enable women’s inclusion in India’s growth story. Equally, women’s potential in enabling development, instead of being passive beneficiaries of it, must be recognised in these processes. Commendably, the MoF organises pre-budget consultations. It must be ensured that women are given adequate representation and opportunities to voice their different experiences on such platforms.

Gender budgeting alone is not sufficient to tackle deep-rooted gender disparities. However, policies can be more effective if budgeting takes a broader, gendered approach which includes planning targeted interventions, getting the right policy push with the right budget allocation, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure implementation. Moreover, policies should also be flexible to change based on feedback from the intended recipients as their exclusion from planning and execution processes is often the reason behind the failure of well-intentioned policies. It would also help if the Central government could, through an incentive mechanism, encourage State governments to take up GBR as a priority in their budget layouts. As the government gears up to present the Union budget in February, it will hopefully keep current realities and feedback in mind. While some issues can be debatable, the need to urgently address gender inequality is not.

This article was first published in The Hindu.

Saudi Arabia Determined To Prevent Islamic State From Destabilizing World

0
0

Saudi Arabia will host in Riyadh on Sunday a conference of heads of the general staff of 14 allied countries fighting against the Islamic State (Daesh).

The delegates will discuss increasing coordination between participating countries to serve regional and international security.

The meeting aims to enhance efforts by the alliance, which has achieved tangible progress in recent operations against the terrorist organization.

Lt. Gen. Abdulrahman bin Saleh Al-Bunian, president of the chiefs of staff, said the Kingdom’s hosting of the conference under the leadership of King Salman reflects continued Saudi commitment to international efforts against terrorist organizations, foremost among them Daesh.

Al-Bunian said the Kingdom is a target of terrorists, but is determined to continue its efforts against terrorism and to take all necessary measures via its military alliance to target Daesh in Syria and Iraq and prevent it from destabilizing the region and the world.

He said the Kingdom is working with the international alliance via intellectual, financial and security paths to weaken such organizations and criminalize anyone who offers them help.

The countries participating in the conference are Jordan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the US, Bahrain, Turkey, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco and Nigeria.

Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to call for forming an alliance against terrorist organizations on all levels.

After the declaration of the alliance in September 2014, Riyadh offered $500 million for
relief work in Iraq. It has also participated in air sorties against Daesh, and exchanged intelligence with participating countries.

Ash Carter, US defense secretary, recently said that President-elect Donald Trump must commit to “destroying the tumor of Daesh” by leading the fight against the extremist group.

“There is a need for the US to remain actively engaged as leader of this coalition,” he said while addressing members of the Global Coalition against Daesh at its meeting in London on Dec. 19.

Meanwhile, the terrorist group on Saturday launched one of its fiercest assaults yet on the besieged Syrian city of Deir Ez Zor, leaving more than 30 regime fighters and radicals dead.

The brutal attack — on a day that saw many outbreaks of violence across Syria — came as the political opposition said it “supported” upcoming peace talks in the Kazakh capital Astana.

Ensuring Success Of The French Initiative – OpEd

0
0

The French Initiative to convene an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on January 15th is a momentous opportunity to offer a new approach that would mitigate the hostile relationship between the two sides and create a new socio-political environment conducive to restarting peace negotiations with a realistic prospect for success.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

Recent developments in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrated the huge gap between the Israeli government and the international community’s position about the settlements in the occupied territories and the prospect of a two-state solution. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, followed by Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech condemning the Israeli settlements and characterizing them as a major obstacle to peace, were largely on the mark. But ending the settlements enterprise will not, in and of itself, resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, both the UN and Kerry have ignored other critical issues, particularly the poisonous socio-political atmosphere between the two sides, the fault lines in the peace process itself, and Hamas’ and other Palestinian extremists’ position that calls for Israel’s destruction, to which Kerry made only scant reference.

The French Initiative to convene an international conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on January 15th is a momentous opportunity to offer a new approach that would mitigate the hostile relationship between the two sides and create a new socio-political environment conducive to restarting peace negotiations with a realistic prospect for success. However, the agenda of the conference and its outcome should seek to provide a framework for the Trump administration to align itself with because without the US’ ultimate support, it will have no lasting impact in securing a viable Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Although the UNSC called for taking “immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction,” the resolution fell short in condemning Hamas by name and calling upon its leadership to renounce violence and accept Israel’s right to exist.

This glaring omission plays squarely into the hands of Netanyahu’s right-wing government, which claims that Israel continues to be existentially threatened and only when the Palestinians unequivocally accept Israel’s existence will negotiations produce a lasting peace agreement.

In his speech, Secretary Kerry defended the US abstention in the UNSC, which allowed the resolution to pass, because it recognized the critical importance of combating terrorism and ending all acts of violence: “Everyone understands that no Israeli government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs or that risk creating an enduring security threat like Gaza transferred to the West Bank…. [but] the vote in the United Nations was about preserving the two-state solution.”

Both the UN resolution and Kerry’s speech, however, failed to recognize that the conditions on the ground have dramatically shifted not only because of the settlements, but also because of the psychological dimensions that impact and impede progress on every conflicting issue.

There is profound distrust between the two sides which is compounded by mutually deep concerns over security, coupled with strong illusions held by right-wing Israeli and extremist Palestinian constituencies that claim to have an inherent right to the entire land stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

Hamas has made this claim time and again, and recently Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett stated that Israel should annex Ma’ale Adumim (located 4.5 miles east of Jerusalem), followed by Area C in its entirety, which is under Israeli control and is more than 60 percent of the West Bank.

As Bennett, Netanyahu, and other coalition partners see it, the expansion of settlements and the retroactive legalization of many others built without initial government approval will create irreversible facts on the ground making a two-state solution simply inoperable, which is precisely what they want to secure.

To be sure, the UN resolution and Kerry’s speech are nothing but a call in the wilderness. Other than putting some political pressure on Israel and warning the Palestinians to stop incitements and acts of violence, there is no realistic international enforcement mechanism to compel either side to adhere to the UN resolution or Kerry’s plea.

Netanyahu feels confident that as president, Trump will restore the US’ traditional support of Israel’s position and provide it with political cover any time attempts are made by the international community to pressure or coerce Israel to embrace policies contrary to its perceived national interests.

The timing of the French Initiative may seem odd as it is taking place only five days before the inauguration of President-elect Trump. The French government, however, wants to build on the momentum produced by the UN resolution and Kerry’s speech to engender wider international consensus beyond the UNSC against the settlements and save the two-state solution, which is viewed as sine qua non to enduring peace.

Furthermore, the French are hoping to prevent the incoming Trump administration from rushing into taking a position completely supportive of Netanyahu and scuttling what’s left of the peace process, especially at a time of regional turmoil and extremism, which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict feeds into with consequential adverse effects on the European community.

For the French conference to succeed, however, it should not merely echo what the UN resolution and Kerry’s speech called for, and not simply push for the resumption of direct or indirect peace negotiations that will meet the same fate as previous talks. The conferees must adopt a three-track approach that will be conducive for the resumption of constructive negotiations leading to a peace agreement that the Trump administration can support.

Given the intense distrust, deep sense of mutual insecurity, and persistent illusion that either side can have all, it is critically important to begin the first track with a process of reconciliation for about two years to largely mitigate these three major obstacles.

During this period, neither side should be required to make concessions regarding any of the major conflicting issues—which in any case neither side is prepared to make at this juncture—but instead take government-to-government and people-to-people measures to create a new socio-political environment supportive of meaningful negotiations.

The government-to-government measures should include: halting the mutually acrimonious public narrative, taking no provocative action (e.g preventing the Palestinians from suing Israel at the International Criminal Court), substantially slowing the expansion of settlements  and providing only for natural growth, encouraging joint economic development ventures, further strengthening security cooperation to prevent violence, and releasing some Palestinian prisoners with no blood on their hands as a good-will gesture. Finally, textbooks should be modified to reflect the reality and rights of both peoples, which is one of the most critical measures that must be taken so that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians see each other as friends and neighbors rather than eternally sworn enemies.

In the area of people-to-people interactions, both sides should undertake several measures (some government-facilitated) including: engaging in an open public discourse to air out some of their concerns and aspirations for the future, allowing more Palestinian laborers to work in Israel, encouraging the media to report on any positive developments, facilitating tourism in both directions, emboldening women activism, supporting student interactions, providing Palestinian youth opportunities to study at Israeli universities, embarking on joint sport activities, and exchanging art exhibitions.

The purpose of these activities is to humanize the Israelis and Palestinians in each other’s eyes, stop the stereotyping, and construct a new relationship based on mutual acceptance and trust, which are essential to peace making.

To significantly allay Israeli concerns (real, perceived, or exaggerated) over national security, the second track is for the conference to call on Hamas and other Palestinian extremists to forsake violence and join the Palestinian Authority in the search for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Hamas is an integral part of the Palestinian body politic, without which no Israeli-Palestinian peace can be forged, let alone endure.

The conferees should especially call on Turkey and Qatar to pressure Hamas (on whom they enjoy tremendous influence) to renounce violence and accept the inevitability of Israel’s existence without necessarily surrendering its arms. As an incentive, Hamas should be removed from the EU and US’ list of terrorist organizations and provided with targeted financial aid to build housing, medical facilities, schools, and infrastructure, and pull the Palestinians in Gaza out of their rampant poverty and despair. Under such circumstances, Israel would ease the blockade and ultimately remove it altogether under conditions of peace.

The third track is the adoption of the Arab Peace Initiative (API) as the overall framework for peace, which could rally the whole Arab world behind the French Initiative and create a roadmap for the establishment of Israeli-Palestinian peace in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.

The conferees should task three foreign ministers from Egypt, France, and the US to persuade Israel and Hamas to embrace the API, which offers several common denominators between them. There is perhaps no better time than now to do just that because of the intensifying collaboration on security and intelligence sharing between Israel and key Arab states in the Gulf, along with Jordan and Egypt, who seek to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and focus on the Iranian threat.

By adopting these three tracks, the conference will put the Israeli government and the PA to the test, as they cannot profess to seek a two-state solution but then refuse to undertake such measures of reconciliation which are essential to a genuine peace agreement.

I am convinced that if the conference does not adopt the above outlined approach and subsequently elicit the endorsement of the Trump administration, it will fail. The failure will deprive the French and, by extension, the EU from having much of a say in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the future, in which their stakes are extremely high.

Given that the US is and will remain the main interlocutor between Israel and the Palestinians, the conference will provide Trump (through the three-track approach) the time and opportunity to genuinely assess the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, Trump would not want to grant Netanyahu’s wishes and let him expand the settlements and annex more Palestinian territories if such a move kills any prospect of a two-state solution and subjects Israel to a perilous future.

Trump, who boasts of being the greatest dealmaker, should take heed of the above and, with the support of the European community led by France, effect a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which will indeed be the deal of the century.

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

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

Profitable Coral Reef Fisheries Require Light Fishing

0
0

Fishing is fundamentally altering the food chain in coral reefs and putting dual pressures on the valuable top-level predatory fish, according to new research by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Lancaster University, and other organizations.

Fish that sit at the top of the food chain, such as such as snapper and groupers, are highly sought-after in restaurants the world over, commanding a high price in fish markets and supporting fishing communities across the tropics, but maintaining them may be challenged by the complexity of the coral reef food web, according to a newly published study titled “Human disruption of coral reef trophic structure” in the journal Current Biology.

“Given the fragile state of the world’s coral reefs it is important to understand how human activity such as fishing impacts upon coral reef ecology,” said lead author Nick Graham of the Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University. “Our study has shown these top-level predatory fish are only likely to be viable in overall lightly fished reefs, for example the Great Barrier Reef. To both conserve these top-of-the-food-chain fish, and to maintain fisheries for them, overall fish biomass on the coral reef needs to remain high.

Studying a large array of reefs in the Indian Ocean, the researchers found that reef food webs are altered in ways that can undermine valued species by bottom-up losses of available food as much as the top-down forces of fishing. These predators feed on other moderately sought fisheries species, such as parrotfish and surgeonfish, which appear both slow to recover from fishing but are also replaced by sea urchins as grazers, which are not the prey of these valued predators.

Consequently, replacing fish at the bottom of the food web with sea urchins may bolster the mid-tier species of fish but at a cost to the most prized predators. Fisheries in these situations struggle to maintain their preferred catch and pricey yields. The ecosystem is fundamentally altered in ways that may undermine the potential to recover their value.

The team also found that an hourglass food web shape emerges in what is frequently predicted to be an ecosystem pyramid, implying that energy in the ecosystem may accumulate at the top of the food chain by high productivity but low biomass of the mid-tier predators. This suggests lightly fished systems support these valuable top-level fish if lightly fished but fishing lower in the food chain can cause a collapse of the top tier predators. This is also most likely to occur when these mid-tier predators are fished and when herbivorous fish are replaced by sea urchins at the bottom of the food chain. Sea urchins proliferate when their mid-tier predators are fished even lightly.

These ecological insights cast a new light on how to manage tropical fisheries and policies for maintaining intact food webs, filling an important gap in our understanding of fisheries targets on coral reefs.

“Previous research by our team has identified target levels of biomass which sustain fisheries for a diverse array of species, while maintaining ecosystem structure. This current work identifies a higher target for fisheries that aim to target predatory fish and focus on high value fisheries,” said Dr. Tim McClanahan, Senior Conservation Zoologist of WCS and a study co-author. “Key to these targets is the objective of maintaining the ecosystem at the same time as supporting fisheries and livelihoods.”

“Understanding how humans alter energy flows within coral reefs gives us another tool for deciding how much fish we can safely take for ourselves,” said Dr. Aaron MacNeil of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and Dalhousie University. “And by accounting for the energy stored in the system, we can choose to allocate effort to different parts of the food web and maximize overall catch and function.”

McClanahan added: “Millions of people in coastal communities around the world rely on natural resources from coral reefs and other marine ecosystems. Studies such as this one that determine how much fishing these ecosystems can sustain are more important than ever if we are to keep coral reefs fully functional for sustainable use.”

Pakistan: Four Bloggers Missing

0
0

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) urges the Pakistani government to conduct thorough investigations into the disappearances of four secularist bloggers in the past week and to explore all conceivable scenarios, including their possible abduction by armed groups or by members of the security forces.

The most prominent of the four is Salman Haider, a university professor known for making outspoken comments about enforced disappearances in Balochistan. He disappeared in the capital, Islamabad, on 6 January.

Waqas Goraya, a frequent critic of the government and religious extremists in his blog posts, and Asim Saeed were reported missing by their families near the northeastern city of Lahore on January 4, while Ahmed Raza Naseer, a polio victim, was abducted from his family’s shop in Sheikhupura, a town near Lahore, on January 7, his brother said. Both Saeed and Naseer were known for their liberal views.

Haider’s wife received a text from Haider’s phone on the evening of January 6 saying he was abandoning his car on the Islamabad expressway, but it has not been possible to verify whether it was Haider himself who sent the text.

“This series of disappearances is shocking and extremely worrying on several counts,” said Benjamin Ismaïl, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk. “We cannot ignore the similarities or the fact that they have all taken place in towns near Lahore or the capital.

Nothing can be affirmed with certainty, but the possibility of accidental disappearances cannot be taken seriously either.

“If they were abducted, who were the perpetrators and what was their motive? Were they radical armed groups or members of the armed forces? No scenario should be ruled out. The police and judicial authorities must thoroughly examine all possibilities that could lead to the four bloggers being recovered safe and sound. Failure will be seen as giant step backwards for democracy in Pakistan.”

The interior ministry said during that Haider’s disappearance would be investigated but it has not mentioned the other disappearances.

Hundreds of people have taken part in demonstrations in Pakistani cities in the past few days to condemn the disappearances of the four online activists and to call for their immediate and safe return.

Calls for protests are being organized under the #RecoverAllActivists hashtag.

Civil society activists and journalists who cover sensitive political and social issues in Pakistan are subject to constant harassment and persecution by both the security forces and armed extremist groups.

Pakistan is ranked 147th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2016 World Press Freedom Index.

David Bowie, George Michael To Be Honored At Brit Awards 2017

0
0

This year’s Brit Awards is reportedly set to honour David Bowie, George Michael and late Beatles producer George Martin, NME reports.

The 2017 awards ceremony will be held on February 22 at London’s O2 Arena. The Brit Awards nominations ceremony will take place on January 14.

Last year a special tribute was paid to Bowie at the event with Lorde performing ‘Life On Mars’ in honour of the iconic singer.

Now it has apparently been decided further tributes will be paid to the singer.

A source told The Sun newspaper: “After so many huge losses last year the organisers thought it was only fitting that they paid tribute properly.

“The focus is purely on home-grown stars, specifically David Bowie, George Michael and George Martin, who have all won BRITs in the past.

“It has not been decided yet what form the tribute will take but it’s going to be a tearjerker.

“There won’t be a dry eye in the room.”

At last year’s ceremony Bowie’s close friend Gary Oldman accepted the BRITs Icon Award on behalf of the family of the ‘Heroes’ star.

The actor also celebrated what would have been Bowie‘s 70th birthday recently, with a special tribute concert at Brixton Academy which also featured the late singer’s old band, La Roux, Simon Le Bon and Def Leppard.

Meanwhile, singer Michael Buble is due to host this year’s Brit Awards. The last two years have seen the ceremony presented by Ant & Dec, while James Corden was the host for four years prior to that.

Robbie Williams will receive the 2017’s BRITs Icon Award. The former member of Take That has already won the Outstanding Contribution To Music award, and now will be honoured for earning “a special place” in UK fans’ hearts with his “enduring appeal and his exceptional track record of hit singles”.

Organisers have announced a major overhaul of their voting system for the forthcoming 2017 ceremony.


West Africa: New Pest Threatens Crops

0
0

The moth Spodoptera frugiperda, commonly known as fall armyworm moth, was first registered in Africa in 2016. It is not certain how it arrived, but DNA-analyses show that it is likely to have been more than an introduction.

The species is a native of Latin America where it is a well-known pest. It can attack more than 80 different plant species, including important crops such as maize, rice, sugarcane, sorghum, grains and other plants in the grass family.

So far, there have been reports of the moth in Benin, Togo and Nigeria, as well as the archipelago São Tomé and Príncipe. However, it is likely that it may also be established in several other African states. In the coming years, it will undoubtedly be a big problem for all African countries where maize is an important crop.

Extent of damage could be devastating

Researcher May-Guri Sæthre from NIBIO (Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy) has 15 years of experience with insect pests and biological pest control in Western Africa. This autumn, she returned to Benin to inspect the situation and discuss future project collaborations.

“In Benin, maize is grown almost everywhere. When we visited the country in November, we went to several maize fields where there were enormous damage. Plants with tattered, floppy leaves. In addition, we saw many destroyed maize fields from the car window. In the university’s maize field, where they grow certified seeds for the farmers, it was also total destruction,” Sæthre said. This was despite of two insecticide applications.

Due to the high temperatures in the area, these moths develop very fast. They lay eggs in clusters of 100-300, which hatch after only 2-3 days. The small larvae immediately starts to eat plant material. Gradually they also become cannibals. The larvae stage lasts for 14-20 days depending on the temperature. The subsequent pupa stage lasts for 9-13 days. At any time, there are 4-6 overlapping generations, which means that the plants are unable to rest – they are under constant pressure.

“This pest-situation could potentially have a devastating impact on the poorest part of the population,” Sæthre said. “Maize and cassava are important food sources for millions of people. At worst, huge losses of crops could lead to famine and increased migration.”

Spread easily

Usually, this type of pests crosses boarders as stowaways on exported plant material. However, it is not enough to look for egg and larvae. The adult moths have a very good spreading ability, which is quite unusual. In America, fall armyworm moth can migrate enormous distances in its lifecycle.

During the summer, the adult individuals start dispersing. They follow northerly airflows and gradually appear throughout most parts of the USA and in Canada. Here, however, they die during winter, as they cannot survive the low temperatures. After all, this is a tropical species that thrives in temperatures around 27-28 degrees Celsius.

Currently, there are no successful methods to combat fall armyworm moth in West Africa. However, the extent of damage is already so large that it is crucial to get started quickly. In Benin, controlling this new pest is top priority for the agricultural authorities.

Sæthre wishes to set up an international research collaboration to combat the pest. However, this will depend on funding.

“The aim is to establish a regional programme where we can obtain knowledge to benefit all countries in the region, including Niger, Nigeria, Benin and Togo,” she said.

“We had productive meetings with representatives from the Government of Benin in November. In addition, NIBIO has signed a Memorandum of Understanding on a research collaboration with the National University of Agriculture (UNA) in Porto-Novo and Ketou. We have previously collaborated with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) for many years, and combined, we have both the expertise and facilities to start up on short notice.”

In addition to short-term control measures, we may also look at more long-term measures, Sæthre says. This may for instance be to map out which natural enemies the species have in its’ original areas. Is it possible to safely transfer some of these to Africa?

Normally it would take years to obtain knowledge of pest control measures. The benefit in this case is that the species is known, and that there is already some knowledge available concerning the biology of the moth and also the natural enemies. There is a lot of literature available, both in Latin America and USA. As a result, the researchers do not need to start from scratch.

– NIBIO already has a connection to Latin-America. This is where the pest originates. I imagine that we can set up a collaboration that also involves our Latin American partners.

Could become a threat in Europe

Fall armyworm moth is on the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) list of quarantine pests. Import to Europe is therefore banned. The species do appear from time to time, but is quickly managed. It often reaches Europe with ornamental plants, fruits or vegetables.

-There is a high risk that the species could become established in the Mediterranean area. Therefore, it is important to have good control routines. Theoretically, it is not inconceivable that adult insects could cross the Sahara on their own, but they are dependent on favourable air currents to manage this.

Oregon Senators Applaud Expansion Of Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

0
0

Oregon’s Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden have welcomed the news that US President Barack Obama is expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Southern Oregon, which they said will help to protect the environmental quality and recreation opportunities that are essential to the region’s way of life and economy.

The monument expansion comes at a critical time for the Cascade-Siskiyou region, as climate change and intensifying development create new threats to this unique and biodiverse area, the senators said. Scientists and local leaders, including the City Councils of Ashland and Talent, had pressed for the expansion to help protect the plant and animal species that exist nowhere else on the planet and to safeguard the region’s tourism and recreation economy.

“Today is a great day for Southern Oregon,” said Merkley. “The Cascade-Siskiyou area, where three mountain ranges converge creating a unique and spectacular landscape seen nowhere else in the world, merits the recognition and expanded protection that President Obama gave it today (Thursday). I deeply appreciate the time and energy of the many Oregonians who came to public meetings and submitted comments on this proposal. Their thoughtful input helped to inform the President’s final decision on both the expansion and its boundaries, and I will continue to press to ensure that their voices are heard as a management plan for the new monument area is formed.”

“Oregonians know that the Cascade-Siskiyou Monument possesses an unrivaled beauty, with natural wonders in every corner and a spectacular landscape that hosts not just diverse ecosystems but recreation opportunities known around the world,” Wyden said. “That’s why I have worked for years to protect this Oregon treasure and its irreplaceable qualities. From pushing the Interior Department nearly two decades ago to first designate this monument to including protections for these lands in various pieces of legislation, I am proud to see this unmatched landscape will remain rugged for decades to come.”

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is located at the convergence of the Cascade, Siskiyou and Klamath mountain ranges. This meeting point between different regions has fostered one of the most biodiverse regions in the country, with unique plant and animal species that can be found nowhere else.

In August, Merkley and Senator Ron Wyden wrote to the Obama Administration to urge them to consider expanded protections for the area. In October, Merkley hosted a public meeting in Southern Oregon with the Deputy Secretary of the Interior for the Administration to gather local input. Hundreds of Oregonians, including local elected leaders and representatives of local tribes, attended the meeting and more than one hundred individuals testified. Jackson and Klamath Counties held additional meetings to gather public input and provided that input to the President.

The senators also included a smaller expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in the Oregon and California Land Grant Act.

Report That Trump To Hold Summit With Putin In Reykjavik

0
0

US President-Elect Donald Trump has told British officials that he wants to hold a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Reykjavik, Iceland, the Sunday Times reported.

The meeting with Vladimir Putin is set to become Donald Trump’s first foreign trip, and the US leader will start working on an agreement limiting nuclear arms within a “reset” in US-Russian relations, according to the newspaper.

Sources close to the Russian Embassy in London said to The Sunday Times that Moscow would agree to a summit between Putin and Trump.

The meeting would come just over 30 years since the historic summit on October 11-12, 1986, between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the second in a series of meetings that relaunched the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The latest report comes just a day after Trump expressed openness to lifting the sanctions against Russia “under certain conditions.”

In an hour-long interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Trump said he wants to keep the sanctions that the Obama administration recently imposed on Russia “at least for a period of time.”

However, Trump added that he would consider lifting the restrictions, depending on how helpful the Russians are in the fight against terrorism, as well as assisting with other goals that he feels are key to the US.

Kazakhstan: Trade Unions Under Pressure – Analysis

0
0

By Bruce Pannier

(RFE/RL) — On the morning of January 11, oil worker Meyrambek Kuantaev climbed up a construction crane at the Kalamkas oil field in Kazakhstan’s western Mangistau Province and stayed there for about 24 hours.

He was protesting. So are others, though they are not climbing on cranes.

There is a showdown going on in Kazakhstan, and it was inevitable.

One week before Kuantaev scaled the crane in Kalamkas, an economic court in the southern city of Shymkent ordered the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Kazakhstan closed.

The government has been slowly squeezing independent unions since an oil worker strike in western Kazakhstan in 2011. That protest lasted more than half the year and resulted in one of the bloodiest events in Kazakhstan’s history. Independent trade unions, as would be expected, sided with the oil workers during the months of the strike.

In 2014, restrictive laws were passed that limited the rights of workers and trade unions.

Union registration regulations were among those changes.

On December 5, 2016, the Justice Ministry filed a case against the confederation for failure to provide all necessary documentation for registration within the prescribed time.

Lawyers for the confederation said the Shymkent court rejected motions to postpone the start of the trial until the defense could prepare its case, and also denied the defense the opportunity to questions witnesses.

According to a January 10 statement from Human Rights Watch (HRW), when the trial opened on January 4, “The court did not allow the confederation to present its case and ruled the same day.”

In Aktau, the Mangistau provincial capital, dozens of workers from the Oil Construction Company (OCC), part of the oil services sector, went on a hunger strike on December 5 to protest the court decision. They have vowed to stay at the OCC office and continue their protest until January 15.

Some of the workers told RFE/RL’s Kazakh Service, known locally as Azattyq, that their union had fulfilled all the regulations to be registered but they had filed a notice with city authorities that they would conduct a demonstration on January 15 to show solidarity with the confederation.

However, while protests are going on, or being planned, authorities have opened a criminal case against confederation President Larisa Kharkova, charging her with embezzling from the confederation. Police allegedly threatened to find more charges against her unless she resigned as confederation president.

On January 11, Kharkova told Azattyq that authorities had searched her home and confiscated her computer, and searched the confederation’s office and the union organization’s accounting office.

Kharkova also told Azattyq the OCC protest in Aktau was a “personal, not a trade union action of protest.”

Ever since the violence in western Kazakhstan in 2011, authorities have been careful in dealing with the oil workers. Kazakhstan scaled back oil production as oil prices dropped but rather than lay off workers, companies moved many of the workers to part-time.

Authorities even tolerated strikes and demonstrations in mid-2016 when workers first started to protest against state moves to bring independent unions into line.

Late last year, layoffs started and according to the labor minister, would affect nearly 20 percent of the workers in the oil sector. Authorities have assured benefits would be available to those who lose their jobs, and held out the possibility that once the massive offshore Kashagan field, which started operation in October 2016, started full production many of workers laid off would be rehired.

But from the oil workers’ perspective, authorities have been chipping away at their rights, and the latest example is that they are losing the independent unions that represent them.

This is particularly true for the oil services workers. Many of those installing or maintaining equipment, or transporting oil, have long felt they were being treated as “second-class” workers. One common complain they have is that the government gives out contracts for various tasks and every time this happens a new company comes in to manage projects, often with new regulations or par scales for the oil service employees.

Workers in the oil services sector say independent unions are their best hope for receiving fair conditions for performing work for new contractors. Some of these workers are old enough to remember the situation in the 1990s when there were no independent trade unions and the government-sponsored unions that existed readily acquiesced to state demands and terms.

These protests under way are the first for 2017 but likely not the last.

Based on material from Azattyq and with help from Azattyq’s Yerzhan Karabek. The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect the views of RFE/RL.

Ban Ki-Moon Leaves Behind Mixed Legacy – Analysis

0
0

By Rodney Reynolds

When former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stepped down on December 31 after a 10-year tenure at the United Nations, he said his “deepest regret” was to leave office with “the continuing nightmare in Syria” where a six-year-old civil war has virtually devastated a country beyond physical recognition.

As Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard told a General Assembly December meeting that without action, Syria would soon become “a giant graveyard, as food supplies have been exhausted and families were eating grass and the little garbage left,” in order to survive.

But over the past decade – with the Security Council deadlocked on key issues – Syria was not the only unresolved political and military crisis that Ban regrettably left behind.

Among the ongoing political hotspots – some of which he inherited from his predecessors – were Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan, Palestine, Western Sahara, the Democratic Republic of Congo, plus a defiant North Korea going nuclear.

In the last few months before his departure, Ban was quick to claim credit for three lasting legacies: the historic Paris Climate Change agreement, the Addis Ababa Action Plan and the UN’s much-trumpeted post-2015 development agenda, including 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

As Ambassador Peter Thomson of Fiji, president of the 193-member General Assembly, pointed out, the three agreements, if fully implemented, will provide humanity with a “master plan” to eliminate extreme poverty and hunger, empower women and girls, build an inclusive society and combat climate change.

But the successful implementation of these agreements will depend largely on political will, and more importantly, on billions of dollars in financial resources. But how achievable are these?

Ban has also rightly taken credit for the creation of a UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), while also ensuring an increase in the number of women in senior positions in the world body.

But the few positives have been eroded by the many negatives, including a rise in sexual abuses in peacekeeping missions overseas and a disastrous cholera epidemic in Haiti spread by UN peacekeepers — both under Ban’s watch at the UN.

George A. Lopez, the Hesburgh Chair in Peace Studies, emeritus, at the University of Notre Dame and a former member of the UN Panel of Experts monitoring sanctions on North Korea, told IDN that assessing the tenure of Ban Ki-moon generates – quite rightly — both harsh disdain and modest praise.

“In the former area, his legacy will always be defined by two glaring UN tragedies turned scandals for which he failed to mobilize remedies quickly or accept UN responsibility,” he said.

The first was the autumn 2010 outbreak of cholera in earthquake-devastated Haiti that originated in a UN peacekeeping camp.

Lopez said UN foot-dragging and denials continued until the end of Ban’s term, by which time cholera deaths had exceeded 10,000 and those continuing afflicted approached 800,000.

Secondly, he pointed out, sexual abuse by French and African members of UN peacekeeping operations in Africa surfaced in 2013 and numbered in the hundreds as Ban left office.

“The administrative debacle continues as cover-ups and impunity are not yet addressed in full,” he noted.

Sanam Anderlini, co-founder and Executive Director of International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), told IDN: “I think Ban Ki-Moon missed a critical opportunity to articulate a clear inspirational vision for the UN in the 21st century as the central pillar of the global peace architecture.”

“But in his time, some of the nuts and bolts of what we need, was put in place,” she said, pointing out some of the mechanisms instituted to ensure more outreach to women and civil society in UN-led peace processes as in Syria, Yemen and Somalia, to name a few.

“But there is much more that needs to be done, and lessons apply. We cannot underestimate the value of what’s been achieved and the opportunity to enable some constructive experimentation.”

Still, she singled out the ongoing ruthless war in Yemen as “the worst outcome of Ban’s tenure as Secretary-General”.

“It must be stated regardless of what effort was put into preventing the war – it was sadly on his watch,” she noted.

The Security Council, the UN body whose sole responsibility is to prevent one member state waging war against another – voted to support Saudis bombing of Yemen, Anderlini added.

“It is a travesty for Yemenis, and the greatest blow to the ideals, the spirit and the raison d’etre of the UN,” she declared.

Paying a compliment to the former UN chief, Lopez said Ban’s determination and demeanor, as well as his attention to the needs of middle and lower tier member states, did result in noteworthy advances.

He persuaded world leaders to build from a UN-driven success in poverty and child mortality reductions via the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to adopt 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The latter has been particularly successful in attracting private sector participation and some of the globe’s most entrepreneurial talent, he added.

Ban’s crowning achievement is likely to be forging the Paris Accords as a far-reaching and politically viable response to the crisis of climate change.

Much like his predecessors, Ban leaves office still frustrated by the reality that while the UN has its own unique organizational capabilities, it is still restrained in matters of war and peace because it can be only as effective as the P-5 power brokers (the US, UK, France, Russia and China) of the Security Council permit.

And in many ways, the US-UK rejection of Kofi Annan’s attempt to dissuade them from war in Iraq set the stage for Ban’s UN paralysis in restraining Russia in Syria, or lesser national powers in Libya and Yemen, said Lopez, who was engaged with colleagues at the UN University this year on a major edited volume, The Sanctions Enterprise: Assessing a Quarter Century of UN Action for Peace, Security and Human Rights, to be published by Cambridge University Press.

India: Recent Trend Of Defiance Of Judiciary Could Lead To Anarchy – OpEd

0
0

The Supreme Court ordered the Karnataka government to release a certain quantity of cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, which was defied by the Karnataka government. The Supreme Court ordered that Jallikattu should not be conducted in Tamil Nadu,  and the case to review the order is still pending. In several places in Tamil Nadu, Jallikattu has been conducted defying the Supreme Court order.

And, in Andhra Pradesh, despite being banned by the High court, rooster fights were organized in about 200 venues in the East Godavari and West Godavari districts. Local representatives attended the events as chief guests. The court’s directive has not deterred the organizers and punters.

There have also been similar other instances of defiance of court orders in the past in variety of ways.

Judiciary no more the lofty body that it once was

Possibly, the main reason for such defiance of judiciary is that it does not anymore command the type of respect that it did earlier.

With Supreme Court judges refusing to have transparency in the appointment of judges, quite a number of judges having been caught on corruption charges or accused of being corrupt or even accused of sex scandal, some former judges like Katju questioning the Supreme Court order, some of the controversial observations of the judges inside and outside the court premises and some judges sharing platform with those facing corruption and criminal charges, judiciary seem to be rapidly losing it’s pivotal position and lofty image that it once enjoyed.

Lawyers also fast losing credibility

Gone are the days when several lawyers glorified themselves by remaining steadfast with their principles and revealing high qualities of intellectual caliber. Today, we see conditions where some lawyers indulge in street battle between themselves (as it happened in Chennai a few months back), abuse the judges in the court premises and indulge in several other misdeeds.

The contribution of some lawyers to the visible fall in the image of judiciary is considerable.

A disturbing perspective

In such circumstances, perspective seem to be developing among section of people that the order of judiciary need not be considered sacrosanct and they go to the extent of organizing demonstrative mass protest against the judicial order.

So far, those who defy the court orders by threatening to disrupt law and order have got away and courts give an appearance of being helpless in tackling such defiance.

This is a very unhealthy situation, a disturbing trend and can lead to anarchy.

Should not the judges be concerned?

It particularly causes concern that the judges in the apex court have not given any indication so far that they are conscious of such disturbing trend. The Chief Justice of India so far does not seem to have taken any effective steps to improve the situation by enforcing appropriate code of conduct for the judges. As a matter of fact, code of conduct for judges is conspicuous by its absence.

The Chief Justice of India should constitute a disciplinary committee to implement the code of conduct for judges, to ensure that judges would also be punished if they would err and fail to act, keeping in view the letter and spirit of the code of conduct for the judges.

With the credibility of the politicians and bureaucrats being so low, people seem to think that in the present conditions, judiciary should rise up to the occasion and punish the culprits and ensure fair play. It is increasingly becoming doubtful whether judiciary is now cut out to play such role of remaining as a watch dog and conscience keeper of society.

In any case, even if some damage has been done to the reputation of judiciary in recent times, the judiciary’s verdict should be accepted unquestioningly by everyone to prevent a scenario of free for all.

For this to happen, the judges have to become more conscious of their image and take due note of the severe dent that has happened to it in the recent past.

Iran: Airbus Delivered To Tehran’s Mehrabad Airport

0
0

A delegation from Iran’s government gathered at the Mehrabad Airport to celebrate the arrival of the first Airbus A321, part of a deal brokered by President Rohani that was signed with the European air industry giant, reports Iranian press.

According to Mehr News, the heads of Iran Air and head of Airbus were onboard the Airbus A321, which departed from the southern city of Toulouse, France

Airbus CEO Fabrice Brégier told the press on Wednesday that the company would provide Iran with 98 planes, claiming that “the deal is approved by the US Treasury and according to latest international standards of trade,” according to Mehr News.

The deal to renew Iran’s antiquated air fleet will reportedly improve the passenger capacity to 50,000 seats, with 20,000 jobs directly created by the renewal, reported Mehr News, adding that Iran will only pay 15 percent of the total price, with 85 percent financed by foreign creditors.


Afghanistan At Crossroads Of World And Regional Powers – OpEd

0
0

International bickering and bloc building could soon further jeopardize security in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is being positioned in an outlandish situation as international political maneuvers become more complicated between the United States and Russia. The country could soon be squeezed between blocs built by the two countries, compromising the safety of Afghans.

While the U.S. and Russia have not been full-fledged allies since World War II, their relations have gradually deteriorated after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Syrian conflict. It has reached an even more critical point after Russia’s alleged interference in U.S. 2016 presidential election, subsequent sanctions on Moscow and ejection of Russian diplomats from Washington by President Barack Obama on December 29.

That scenario poses an ever more complicated ground for Afghanistan, a country still grappling with enduring, protracted violence.

The U.S. has spent about $783 billion—and counting—and lost over 2,300 troops since 2001 in Afghanistan. It has also provided Pakistan, a supposed ally in “War on Terror,” with billions of dollars in military compensation and supplies through the Coalition Support Fund, in a bid to bar Islamabad from supporting terrorist fighters in Afghanistan. That strategy has not been successful as Pakistan continues to harbor Taliban. Ever since the resurgence of Taliban in 2004, Pakistan has been the main funder and backer of Taliban—using it as a proxy tool to gain strategic depth in Afghanistan. Every single negotiation effort by former President Hamid Karzai and current President Ashraf Ghani has failed to deter Pakistan from hostile approach toward Afghanistan. The Pakistani military and officials have repeatedly admitted that they actively support Taliban despite U.S. pressure on them.

The Taliban are responsible for the plight of Afghan and U.S. military. In total, the Afghanistan war bore 104,000 casualties over the course of 15 years. In 2016 alone, Afghan security forces have lost over 15,000 personnel in the war. Also, more than 1,600 Afghan civilians have been killed in 2016.

With President Obama conceding on December 7 that the U.S. cannot defeat Taliban, Moscow saw a window opportunity to cling on by hosting a conference on Afghanistan with China and Pakistan, but that summit excluded Afghanistan. Perhaps Russia feels there is a vacuum that needs to be filled.

After having enough of devilment, U.S. lawmakers have recently moved to pass a bill, labeling Pakistan as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” That has worried Pakistan and is why it has started seeking a new patron in Russia, besides China.

In September, Pakistan hosted a team of Russian troops for a joint military drill. Moscow has also used Pakistan to approach Taliban. By making amends with Taliban, it is perhaps in a mood to seek revenge of its defeat in Afghanistan in 1980s by switching roles. Even though publicly it has been political relations so far, Taliban have reportedly met a few times with Russian officials in Tajikistan and elsewhere and received tactical warring directions.

To add to Afghanistan’s turmoil, Iran too has been lately arming Taliban and funding their insurgent activities for three major reasons: to harass the U.S. mission in Afghanistan; to take advantage of the instability in Afghanistan and conscribe Afghan Shias for its proxy wars in the Middle East; and constrain any developmental projects on rivers flowing to Iran from Afghanistan.

Even though China is the most influential part of the quartet (China, Iran, Pakistan and Russia), it has not engaged in hostility in Afghanistan so far. The economic competition between China and U.S. has been in full swing for long, especially, after the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, vis-a-vi the World Bank, China could extend its territorial speculation to South and Central Asia, with Afghanistan being the most strategic country. U.S. already has trusted partners in the region — Afghanistan and India — it only needs to come to decisive terms with Pakistan. While Russia speculates to form a Cold War-like bloc alongside Iran, China and Pakistan, U.S.-China trade partnership and shared interests in global leadership will play a deterrent role in the formation of that alliance. It would not be optimal for China to wrest militarily with U.S. Of that quartet, Iran pledges to extend its Shiite hegemony throughout the Middle East by projecting violence and proxy wars, Pakistan also has proved to be ‘an worthy ally’ and terrorist sponsoring state who can change sides at any given time and Russia seeks to cement its unchallenged grip on Central Asia. All those agendas are against the international order U.S. and NATO perceived for the world after the Second World War.

In that region, Afghanistan, India and U.S. need to push their boundaries of trade and regional collaboration as wide as they can. U.S. and Pakistan are at a contradicting juncture in terms of dealing with Afghanistan. Pakistan is backing violent, non-state actors in Afghanistan, and U.S. is supporting the government and funds its military, in order to prevent a Sept. 11-type replica and other national security threats.

Any U.S. effort would be in vain until Pakistan stops its state sponsorship of terrorism. The U.S. needs to go beyond its use of soft power on Pakistan, time for imposition of economic sanctions and targeting militant leaders has come. Afghanistan and India are the two like-minded and genuine partners of the U.S. in that region, U.S. needs to team up with those nations and foil the making of a China-Russia-Pakistan-Iran bloc that would prolong the conflict in Afghanistan, and put U.S. national interest at risk. The major factor in revival of Taliban as a hostile power was U.S. distraction toward Iraq in 2003-2011. The U.S. cannot afford to repeat the same mistake and take expansion of support for Taliban lightly. Taliban published a note on their website, confirming that Iran and Russia recognize them as a legitimate power and are supporting them.

On the other hand, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, warned that Afghanistan is on the verge of extinction as a nation. This comes amid Russia-Pakistan new chapter of relationship. Pakistani military elite have been proposing for long that there should be created a buffer zone from Afghan territory and given to Taliban. This is an indication of a new regional alliance in the making. On the other hand, Afghan officials have said that Russia is blocking to Afghan government’s peace deal with Hizb-e-Islami by delaying the process of removal of Gulbudin Hekmatyar’s name from UN’s sanctions list. Hekmatyar publicly denounced Taliban as a terrorist group and endorsed the Afghan government in September of 2016.

If Afghan and U.S. statesmen do not play diligently as we speak, sooner than later the Taliban will gain regional support, and seize some part of Afghanistan, and undo all the enhancements, and government and nation-building processes underpinned by U.S. and allies and Afghanistan in the last fifteen years. This will not only make the blood spill to continue in Afghanistan, but the conflict will encompass the whole region and will have global repercussions.

*Samim Arif, is an Afghan Fulbright scholar. He studied Political Journalism and Public Relations at Indiana University and tweets at samimarif

Modernizing Islam: Iran’s Reformists And Reconstructionists Square Off – Analysis

0
0

Iran’s Reformists and Reconstructionists Square off on the question of Modernizing Islam

By Mahmoud Sadri*

About a year ago, a group of diaspora Muslim intellectuals were sitting around a blazing fire by a muddy river in Broken Bow, Oklahoma, debating strategies of modernizing traditional Islam.

The worldwide Islamic reform movement, undaunted by the lurid cruelty of Islamic extremism, forges ahead. Its anxious debates may sound Byzantine to Western ears, but since they may very well presage the arrival of Islam’s own brand of reformation, they deserve a hearing.

What is the debate about?

Reformation in Islam was a response to the challenge of “modernity” (as was fundamentalism.) The definition of modernity to me, a sociologist, boils down to one word: “Differentiation,” (of institutions like religion and state, and of spheres of life like public and private.) This is inevitable for every society as it becomes more complex. It’s also a good thing because it makes liberty and prosperity more accessible to everyone. It comes, however, with a price.

Modernization is a painful transition for every traditional society. It divides political power, angering the powerful, and increases specialized knowledge, confusing the believers. And yet, it is doubly hard for the non-Western and particularly Islamic societies. Why? Because they must accommodate modernization while resisting Westernization. Unlike in the West, where modernity was a local groundswell, it came to non-Westerners as suspicious cargo: a cluster of unknown ways, brought by distrusted visitors.

Mohammad Iqbal

Mohammad Iqbal

This challenge split the Islamic response to modernity into two: “Revivalists” saw modernization as inseparable from the Westernization, renounced it, and resorted to a crude reconstruction of the old religion to rival modernity. “Reformists”, on the other hand, sought to accommodate the modern while resisting the Western. The two Muslim camps faced off in the 19th century on the fringes of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, in places like Bosnia Herzegovina and Trans Caucasia. Their successors continued the debate in the twentieth century in the Colonial India and pre-revolutionary Iran.

By the 20th century, however, Revivalism (exemplified in Egypt’s anti-traditional Salafi school of thought) had collapsed and what was left of it was swallowed whole by Wahhabism (from nomadic Arabian Peninsula). It was and still is the deadly enemy of modernity. Reformism, too, had changed. It had sprouted a new branch, Reconstructionism, which sought to re-imagine Islam, as a whole, in light of the modern science, ethics and politics, and aesthetics. Now the step-by-step Reformists had to mollify the vaulting ambitions of Reconstructionists within their ranks.

Nowhere was the debate between Islamic Reformism and Reconstructionism (both modernist projects) better illustrated than in pre-independence India. There, the Reformist politician Abul Kalam Azad, a Gandhi loyalist, faced Mohammad Iqbal, an astute philosopher and lyricist who had coined the term “Reconstruction” of Islamic thought.

Azad believed traditional Muslims and Hindus only needed a modicum of literacy and civic tolerance in order to live and prosper together in the modern independent India. Mohammad Iqbal, on the other hand, despised both Islamic and Hindu superstitious parochialism.

In a historic letter to his colleague, Jinnah, (the founder of modern Pakistan) he counseled partition and formation of a new state based on his idea of a modern progressive Islam. The subcontinent split into two and later, three countries. The bloody legacy of partition and the history of India and Pakistan, however, corroborated Azad’s modest reformist views.

Iqbal’s ambitious Republic of Virtue, the world’s first Islamic Republic, soon succumbed to authoritarianism and radicalism, while Azad’s reformist vision of tolerance and pluralism in India contributed to the creation of the world’s largest democracy. This was a bitter and bloody divorce but was not inevitable. Reformists and Reconstructionists could have collaborated. They still can.

Enter Iran

The same rivalry played out in the second half of the 20th century in Iran, pitting the tireless Reformist Mehdi Bazargan against the ebullient Reconstructionist Ali Shariati. The former looked for a practical path toward liberty and prosperity through party politics and (when that failed) peaceful protest. The latter, oblivious to short term solutions, envisioned another Islam, compatible with soaring humanist and progressive ideals.

Abdulkareem Soroush

Abdulkareem Soroush

These meandering currents emptied into the torrent of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which unceremoniously metabolized their democratic and progressive energies and forged its own unique hybrid blend: a dual (half democratic, half theocratic) republic; a political oxymoron known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iranian Reformists regrouped 15 years after the revolution, first with the slogan of rebuilding and prosperity under President Hashemi Rafsanjani, and then under the banner of civic liberty under President Mohammad Khatami. The movement suffered an eight-year setback under Ahmadinejad’s neo-fundamentalist demagoguery but, having learned its lessons, returned with the slogan of “Prudence and Hope” under President Rouhani.

Present and Presently…

Now, once more, the Reform and Reconstruction camps of Islamic modernism are debating each other. Among the people present around the Broken Bow campfire was Abdulkarim Soroush, (who has been called the “Luther of Islam”). Soroush’s bold Reconstructionist views (he makes no secret of his admiration for Mohammad Iqbal) have caused a tempest in the crucible of Reform-Reconstruction debates. The proponents of Reform fear a repetition of a variant of the Indian scenario in the Iranian theater. Reformism is moderate, pragmatist, and realist; Reconstructionism is ambitious, idealist, even “Emanationist” (expecting realities to “emanate” from ideas, like Athena, springing forth, fully armed, from Zeus’s forehead.)

Soroush’s increasingly radical departures from received religious wisdom include his recent views on God (as impersonal and – for all intents and purposes — absent), Qur’anic revelation (as dream sequences), and Islamic jurisprudence (as antiquated and all but irrelevant).

Reformers are worried about the compatibility of these ideas with the reform program in Iran and across the Islamic world. They believe radical pronouncements such as these are not only incompatible with the theology and history of the religion but that they may alienate the masses and push them toward the fundamentalists.

Soroush and his other Reconstructionist colleagues (Mohammed Arkoun in France, Nasr Abu Zayd in Egypt, Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari in Iran, and others) risk alienating their reform-minded colleagues who increasingly despair of translating their radical reconstructions for a more traditional Muslim audience.

For their part, Soroush and his colleagues have argued that their only “responsibility” is to the “truth.” Their reform-minded colleagues argue that, resigning from the role of “engaged intellectuals” (as defined in Europe by Emile Zola and Jean Paul Sartre) they risk irrelevance and obscurity at this sensitive juncture in the history of Iranian and Islamic reformation. The relentless demystification of religious precepts at the hands of Reconstructionists may very well alienate the community of believers and deliver them into the hands of the extremists in traditionalist clothing.

Land ahoy

Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th century Danish philosopher, once proposed that religious believers are like passengers in ships that have been launched a long time before they were born. The Reform movement contends that the necessary changes and repairs can only be implemented from within the ship. Reconstructionists must work with the reformers and, above all, must be careful not to drill holes in the ship’s hull. The (inner worldly) salvation may be closer than the Reconstructionists imagine.

*Mahmoud Sadri is a professor of sociology and affiliated professor of Women’s Studies at Texas Woman’s University and the Federation of North Texas Area Universities.

Author’s Note: Two months ago I published two articles in the Persian page of Radio Zamaneh entitled: “the Discourse of Religious reform and reconstruction” and “Evolution and Ripening of the Idea of Religious Reform”. Subsequently, I participated in a round table discussion at the BBC’s “Pargar” program, the first installment of which was aired on December 29, 2016 under the title of “Reform or Beyond?”. Given the fact that all of the above were written and spoken in vernacular Persian, I thought an English synopsis may be of interest.

Changing Atmospheric Conditions May Contribute To Stronger Ocean Waves In Antarctica

0
0

Over the past few years, a large fracture has grown across a large floating ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula. The world is watching the ice shelf, now poised to break off an iceberg the size of Delaware into the ocean.

It’s not a new phenomenon; this “thumb” of Antarctica, which juts out into the stormy Southern Ocean, has lost more than 28,000 square kilometers of floating ice — almost as large as Massachusetts — over the past half-century. This has included the complete disintegration of four ice shelves, the floating extensions of glaciers.

Now, a new study led by Colorado State University provides important details on the extent of sea ice, which can protect ice shelves from the impacts of ocean storms, in the Antarctic Peninsula.

El Nino-like weather patterns in Antarctica

Scientists have long thought that a shift in the Southern Annular Mode, which describes a large-scale pattern of atmospheric variability for the Southern Hemisphere similar to El Nino in the tropics, may produce conditions that can lead to the collapse of ice shelves.

The CSU-led research team offers important details on how the Southern Annular Mode affects storm activity and the extent of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula. Sea ice may protect ice shelves from the impacts of ocean storms by weakening wave intensity before it reaches the coastline.

The researchers utilized a novel approach of studying long-term variations in seismic signals, called microseisms, generated by ocean waves in the region. The findings have implications for the wave environment of the Southern Ocean and, potentially, for factors driving the collapse of ice shelves, which can lead to an accelerated increase in global sea level.

More than two decades of data analyzed

Robert Anthony, who recently received a Ph.D. from CSU’s Department of Geosciences and is now a Mendenhall Research Fellow at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory, said that the team looked at 23 years of seismic data from Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula and East Falkland Island near South America. They looked specifically at seismic signals generated by ocean waves.

“We were able to show that storm and ocean wave activity in the Drake Passage, the ocean basin between the Antarctic Peninsula and South America, increases during positive phases of the Southern Annular Mode,” he explained. “We were also able to verify that sea ice cover does indeed impede ocean swell from reaching the coastline by showing which regions of sea ice impact the intensity of microseisms. This type of analysis may be useful for future applications of using seismic records to track the strength of sea ice over large regions, which has been difficult to determine from satellite observations.”

Anthony, lead author of the study, said that based on the findings, the positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode may contribute to ice shelf weakening and potential collapse events by:

  • increasing air temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula, which can enhance surface melting of ice shelves,
  • driving off sea ice, which enables ocean waves to directly impact ice shelves, and
  • generating stronger wave events.

Researchers had previously speculated on a link between ice shelf collapse and the Southern Annular Mode, based mainly on elevated air temperatures. But the CSU team now suspects that the reduction of sea ice and strong wave events in the Drake Passage could also play a role in rapid collapse events, such as the dramatic collapse of the Larsen A ice shelf in 1995 and, perhaps, the ongoing fracturing of the Larsen C ice shelf.

The team’s next steps include looking more closely at specific ocean swell events and sea ice conditions during known ice shelf collapses and large iceberg calving events.

India: Why No End To Farm Suicides – Analysis

0
0

By Sudhansu R Das*

The latest data of National Crime Records Bureau shows that the incidents of farmers’ suicides numbered 8,007 in 2015. Farmers’ suicides increased by 42 per cent compared to the previous year. Industrially advanced state Maharashtra tops the list with 3,030 suicides followed by Telangana with 1,358 suicides. In 2014, the newly-born state Telangana witnessed the highest number of farmers’ suicides in the country.

The actual reason for farmers’ suicides is always shrouded in mystery. In some places normal deaths were reportedly shown as suicide for compensation. The NCRB data quotes bankruptcy and indebtedness as the main reason behind farmers’ suicides. The data also shows 72.6 per cent of farmers who committed suicide in 2015 were small and marginal farmers who had less than two hectares of land. Though indebtedness, bankruptcy and small landholdings contribute to farmers’ suicides, there are many more reasons which compel farmers to take the extreme step.

In the last three decades, the undivided Andhra Pradesh has implemented the maximum number of development schemes of the central government in the country. The government of India gives 4 per cent interest subsidy on loans to farmers and the state governments give 6 per cent interest subsidy over and above the central government’s subsidy. Ultimately, the farmers get loan at zero percent interest. Interestingly, Telangana tops the list in farmers’ indebtedness in the country with 93 per cent farmers in the state carrying the debt burden. If zero percent interest loan does not generate surplus for farmers there is something wrong in the external environment.

Bank credit is one of the chief ingredients of farm sector growth. Farmers getting institutional credit and remaining in debt is not bad as long as they repay the bank loan and avail fresh loan. If the bank credit reaches the poor farmers and generates surplus income for farmers it is an indicator of healthy credit cycle.  If it does not generate surplus, there is some problem in credit absorption capacity of the region.

Cotton farmers of Telangana replaced many food crops with cotton in vast areas because cotton is easily sold in the market. Traders and middlemen buy cotton from farmers at a lower price and sell it in other states at a higher price. Here the farmers lose due to unscrupulous domestic trade practices and corruption. Thirty years back, cotton cultivation covered less than 10 per cent of the total area and the rest of the area was covered with multiple crops. There were no incidents of farmers’ suicides in the present Telangana region. Today cotton, paddy and maize have spilled over to 70 per cent of the crop area and multiplied farmers’ problems. Crop diversity loss may push Warangal into a Vidarbha type crisis.

Ten years back, Sonai Rajan, 47, of Boshi village of Adilabad district, had 30 cows. He combined farming with milk business to lead a happy life. In 2015, he had to sell all his cows due to green fodder shortage. “I managed for two years by taking my animals 30 km away to a place where fodder was available,” said Sonai. Without cheap green fodder, rearing milch animal is not profitable. The cost of fodder always erodes away the surplus income of the farmers.

Small landholdings of farmers are not the reason for farmers’ suicides in Telangana but drying up of off-farm income-generating activities adds to farmers’ woes. For ages, the farmers used to do farming along with craft-making, weaving, and rearing animals and birds. They used to make ropes, have fish ponds and do horticulture to add to their surplus income. Nearly 70,000 weavers in Gadwal district of Telangana region once earned from weaving and farm income from small pieces of land. Today their number has come down to 5,000 and each weaver’s income varies from Rs 150 to Rs 200 per day. Various economic activities in rural areas should be knit together again to build a healthy village economy.

Nirmal craftsmen of Adilabad district can do agriculture and make export quality wooden toys if the state government provides them poniki wood and marketing assistance. Around 50 artisans work for a handicraft corporation on daily wage basis. Those artisans should be liberated from their present condition and enabled to start their own enterprise so that the 400-year-old Nirmal craft tradition could survive.

Crores of rupees have been spent to harvest rain water in Telangana in the past decades. Some rich influential farmers dig more bore wells to over-exploit ground water which adversely affects the income of the entire farming community which works hard to increase the water table. Unscientific use of chemical fertilisers, improper use of farm machinery and over-exploitation of ground water has made farming unsustainable. Marketing of spurious inputs and absence of extension services in many places shatter the farmers’ dreams.

Papikondalu is a famous tourist destination in East Godavari district. Here the Koya tribe are engaged in agriculture and fishery. The growing habit of consuming liquor among villagers not only erodes their hard earned income but it destroys family life. In the evening, both men and women flock to village liquor shops. The state government earns huge revenue from liquor sale.

Unless the state government takes concrete steps to change these habits and impart quality education to villagers it would adversely affect the income-generating capacity. The majority of farmers in Telangana cannot communicate in Hindi or English with buyers from outside the state nor do they understand the market demand for their produce outside Telangana. Lack of education is the main reason why farmers lose out to middlemen and traders.

*Sudhansu R Das is a veteran journaist. This article is in special arrangement with Insight

Kandahar Bombing: Pakistani Messaging To UAE? – Analysis

0
0

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is mourning five of its diplomats killed in a bombing in Afghanistan’s Kandahar province on 10 January. The bomb killed at least 11 people and wounded 17, including Juma al-Kaabi, the UAE ambassador to Afghanistan. On the Afghan side, authorities said the dead included two politicians, a deputy governor from Kandahar and an Afghan diplomat stationed at its embassy in Washington.

The Emirati diplomats were reported to be “on a mission to carry out humanitarian, educational and development projects”. The diplomats were expected to open a number of UAE-backed projects as part of an aid programme to Afghanistan. The Taliban, the primary actor in the region, denied carrying out the bombing, saying the attack was a result of “internal local rivalry”.

The Kandahar blast was one in a string of bombings that hit three Afghan cities on that day killing nearly 50 people and wounding 100. The Taliban claimed two of them, including the twin suicide blasts near Afghanistan’s parliament in Kabul which killed at least 30 people and wounded 80.The other being a suicide bomb attack in Helmand province. Afghanistan last week had welcomed the Pentagon’s decision to deploy some 300 US Marines to Helmand.

The possibility of a Taliban attack targeting Emirati officials is not going down well with analysts; after all UAE was one of only three countries, along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to recognize the Taliban government during its five-year rule of Afghanistan. The BBC in one of its reports suggested three possibilities: the first being that the Taliban or their allies in the Haqqani militant network carried out the attack targeting the Kandahar police chief Abdul Raziq, who is known to be staunchly anti–Pakistan and who was present when the blasts took place. The Taliban denied involvement when they realised the victims included UAE officials.

The second identified possibility attributes the bombing to regional tensions – Iran reacting to increased Saudi/Arab interests in Afghanistan. The third possibility is that of local rivalries between officials and politicians in Kandahar, who at times have been accused of using the Taliban to harm each other.

There could be two other possibilities; first flowing out of ‘internal local rivalry’ – an Al-Qaeda faction squaring up for Emirati involvement in Yemen and the targeting of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula cadres there. The second, a Pakistani (ISI) rap on the Emirati knuckles for cozying up to India.

The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is going to be the Chief Guest at India’s Republic Day celebrations this month. India expects its decision to have an air force contingent from UAE parade alongside the Indian armed forces during the Republic Day celebrations to send a “clear strategic signal” to Pakistan of its growing strategic bonding with the Gulf region.

There is a precedent to Pakistani ‘messaging’. Several members of the UAE royal family, including deputy prime minister Prince Sheikh Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, on a Houbara bustard hunting mission, had a lucky escape in December last year after their convoy was attacked by 10 armed men on motorcycles in Pakistan’s restive Balochistan province. A spokesman for the banned Balochistan Libration Front claimed responsibility of the attack, the Dawn had reported.

Pakistan has a history of employing covert means to support its diplomatic efforts to secure its national interests.

*Monish Gulati can be contacted at mgulati@spsindia.in . This article was published at South Asia Monitor.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images