Bangladesh’s government must end enforced disappearance by law enforcers, and ensure justice for related rights abuses, New York-based rights watchdog Human Rights Watch said in a new report.

The report: “We Don’t Have Him: Secret Detentions and Enforced Disappearances in Bangladesh”  was released July 6.

It alleges that Bangladeshi law enforcement authorities have illegally detained hundreds of people since 2013, including scores of opposition activists, holding them in secret detention centers.

It documented 90 cases of enforced disappearances in 2016. While most of them were produced in court after weeks or months of secret detention, 21 were killed and the whereabouts of nine others still remain unknown.

In the first five months of this year, 48 cases of disappearances were reported, it said.

The government should immediately stop this widespread practice of enforced disappearances, order prompt, impartial, and independent investigations into these allegations, provide answers to families, and prosecute security forces responsible for such egregious rights violations, the report said.

“The disappearances are well documented and reported, yet the government persists in this abhorrent practice with no regard for the rule of law,” said Brad Adams, HRW Asia director.

“Bangladeshi security forces appear to have a free hand in detaining people, deciding on their guilt or innocence, and determining their punishment, including whether they have the right to be alive.”

When a Hindu Prime Minister visits a Jewish state, two very ancient religions and cultures, that have rarely interacted in the past, came together. Although Jews have lived in India for more than 2,400 years, the traditional Jewish avoidance of missionary activity has meant that the very religious Hindu culture knows very little about Judaism; and what it knows comes from the bias of Christian missionaries.

Like Hindus, Jews have produced a very large and complex textual tradition; and value religious study over sacrificial rituals. Both Hinduism and Judaism have many dietary restrictions. Unlike Hinduism, by virtue of their religion Jews have always been, and will always be, a minority.

A: In a pagan world where everybody worshiped many Gods, Jews worshiped only one.

In a pagan world where everybody represented the divine visibly through sculpture, painting, or a natural object, Jews were taught that God was invisible.

When it’s daughter religions, Christianity and Islam took over the western world, the Jews continued to follow their own tradition and refused to assimilate.

Of all the religions and cultures that existed in the world 3,000 years ago when David was King in Jerusalem only the Jews and the Hindus have survived.

Even in the Messianic Age “each nation will follow its own God” (religion) and Jews will follow their God. i.e. religious pluralism is the will of God. (Micah 4:5)

B: Since Jews did not choose this historical fate, they felt they were chosen by God to play an important role in the spiritual development of all humanity.

Jews were redeemed from Egypt not as individuals but as a community/people. The covenant at Sinai was with the whole people not just with individual believers.

The Jewish religion is mostly the outgrowth of events that happened to the Jewish people, not the result of the spiritual insights of one or more individuals.

Judaism’s response to Plato’s cynical view: “Democracy will always degenerate into chaos because people will vote for their immediate self interests, not the long-term good.” is to proclaim “Either community or suicide.”

When non-Jews become Jewish they join the Jewish people i.e. “your people shall be my people” precedes “your God shall be my God” (Ruth 1:16)

C: Differences are very important even though nothing is totally black or white.

Differences are of degree and relative mixture. Thus Judaism teaches:

This world, and what you make of it, is more important than the next world.

How you behave is more important than what you believe.

Human nature is both good and bad, but in most people the good is greater than the bad.

God will not make us good without our co-operation (free will) and humans alone can’t create a holy society. God and humans need each other.

D. Relationships are the most important aspect of living a good life:

Relationships demand commitments. (covenants)

To do something from a sense of duty (mitvah) is spiritually superior to doing it just because you want to do it. (mitzvah is Hebrew for “commandment. A combination of a religious law, personal obligation, and a privilege. Plural is Mitzvot. Often used to refer to a meritorious or charitable act. First known use: 1,300 BCE)

To do something as part of a community or a tradition is better than to just do your own spiritual thing in order to realize yourself.

Relationships are mutual, interactive and continually changing, so Judaism is an always developing religion, as each generation reacts to God’s continual call.

While Judaism is the only religion for Jews, other religions also provide paths that lead to God and to a good way of life. Religious pluralism is what God desires so our humility and tolerance of others can be tested. As Swami Vivekananda taught: “follow one, and hate none”. This same teaching is in the Quran (109:6): “You have your religion and I have mine.” or as the Indian Muslim sage Maulana Wahiduddin Khan says: “Follow one religion and respect all.”

Like Hinduism anyone who studies the Hebrew Scriptures from a Rabbinic Bible is struck by the number of different commentaries that surround the few lines of the sacred text on each page.

Most religions that have a sacred scripture have editions that come with one commentary. Occasionally they have an edition with two or three commentaries. The standard Jewish study Bible usually comes with at least 5-10 different commentaries.

All of this traces back to a verse in the Book of Psalms: “One thing God has spoken; two things have I heard” (Psalms 62:12). In other words, multiple interpretations of each verse of any Sacred Scripture can be correct, and the word of God, even if they contradict one another. The Hebrew term for this concept of pluralistic interpretation is; Shivim Panim LaTorah (each verse of Torah (Sacred Scripture has 70 different facets).

This concept used both by rationalist and mystical Torah commentators, indicates how fundamental it is to understanding the meaning of Divine revelation. Of course, we know of no verse that has 70 different interpretations; yet. After all, if we knew all 70 glosses to a verse we would understand it as well as it author; which is impossible. Also what would be left for future generations of Biblical scholars to do? But, most verses have at least 3-5 different glosses.

Jewish tradition recognizes four general types of interpretation:

P’shat; the plain simple meaning,
Remez; the allegorical metaphorical meaning,
De-rash; the moral educational meaning, and
Sod; the mystical hidden meaning.

For example: What kind of a tree was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? (Genesis 2:17 and 3:6). Most people think it was an apple tree. They have no idea why, or what that interpretation is supposed to mean.

The Rabbis offer four different interpretations of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; and each of them provides insights into the meaning of the Torah’s account of what makes humans special and what it means to be “like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5)

Rabbi Yose said it was a fig tree for as soon as they ate from it their eyes were open and they covered themselves with fig leaves. (Genesis 3:7) This is the simplest explanation and has the most textual support but it doesn’t tell us why figs represent morality.

Rabbi Judah bar Ilai said they ate from a grapevine i.e. wine (alcohol) represents good and evil because humans have the free choice to use wine to sanctify the Sabbath or to become an alcoholic.

Rabbi Meir said it was a wheat tree i.e. wheat was the first crop to be domesticated and thus is a good. It is a metaphor representing the beginning of farming and then urbanization and civilization. Settled life is a great test of social morality because nomads can always split apart if they can’t live together, but settled people must develop an ongoing legal system and abide by it.

Rabbi Abba said it was an etrog tree. An etrog, used for the Jewish Sukkot-harvest festival, is called a goodly tree and it is good to thank God for the harvest (Leviticus 23:39-42). Gratitude is a spiritual personal value transcending ethics, involving attitude, personality and feeling. The etrog, according to the Rabbis is special because its outside (bark and wood) tastes the same as the inside of the fruit. Thus a good religious person should be the same inside and outside.

These four ways of interpreting a sacred text illustrate the four kinds of religious understanding:

The plain meaning of Rabbi Yose.

The moral lesson pedagogic way of Rabbi Judah bar Ilai who wants to teach people that many things like the grapevine are capable of being used for good or evil purposes. They are not intrinsically good or evil. We can choose how we use them, so we make them good or evil. (Sex,money and meat eating are other examples.)

Rabbi Meir. who was reputed to know dozens of fox fables, thinks social morality is the primary sign of humanity. Farming brings about relatively dense settlements, property disputes, government and economic hierarchies. All of this calls for a just legal system. Thus wheat is a good metaphor.

The forth way is the personal insight, mystical psychological way of Rabbi Abba. The etrog is part of the citrus family. Unlike an orange, a lemon or a grapefruit an etrog has no commercial value. Jews give it a high value (each one costs 100X what a lemon costs) for spiritual reasons. So too does morality have a spiritual value much greater than simple humanistic ethics.

My contribution is that the tree is a Torah tree. Torah is called a tree of life (Proverbs 3:18) and most Jews who study Torah and do Mitsvot live longer than most Jews who do not. Since it is desirable to live a long life, it is also wise to live in a morally simple way which may be the literal or common sense way of Rabbi Yose.

In the past, Tokyo has acted as a harbinger of change in Japan’s national politics. Could outcome of Tokyo election influence course of national politics?

By K. V. Kesavan

The stunning defeat of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly election held on 2 July is a major political setback for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It has rattled both Abe and the leaders of his party. Taking into account the potential impact of the defeat, Abe admitted that his party should take the results to heart as a profound criticism of the people and do some soul-searching. Many other LDP leaders have also stressed the need for the party to seriously reflect on the defeat and take effective steps to regain the trust of the voters.

Abe had scored resounding victories in four major national elections in Japan since 2012 when he came back to power. These victories not only consolidated his power within the LDP, but also enabled him to establish two-thirds majority strength in both houses of the Diet. Indeed, the present electoral reverse has come at a time when Abe seems well set to go all out for realising his life-long political goal of amending the Japanese Constitution.

A look at the scorecard of the present metropolitan election shows the dismal performance of the ruling LDP. Out of the total number of 127 seats of the Assembly, the new Tomin First no Kai (Tokyo Citizens First Party ) founded only recently by Yuriko Koike, the present Tokyo Governor, has grabbed 79 seats along with its allies that include the Komeito Party which is otherwise a partner of Abe at the national-level government. The LDP has secured just 23 seats, less than half of the number of seats (57) it held in the just dissolved Assembly. The Komeito set up 23 candidates who have all been elected. The Japanese Communist Party (JCP) has improved its position from two seats to 19.

Being the national capital, Tokyo is the hub of all political and commercial activities in the country. Populated by about 13.5 million people, its economy is larger than that of the Netherlands. Further, the fact that Tokyo will be hosting the 2020 Olympics adds a lot of importance and even glamour to Governor Koike’s role in the grand event. Both the national and metropolitan governments have to work in full harmony to make a success of the Olympics.

Many Japanese political analysts believe that the outcome of the Tokyo election can influence the course of the national politics. In the past, Tokyo election had acted as a harbinger of change in national politics. For instance, in 2009 the defeat of the LDP in Tokyo Assembly election was followed by a change in the national government. In the general parliamentary election held in the same year, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) defeated the ruling LDP and formed the government. At present, Abe enjoys massive majority in both houses of the Diet and with the next lower house election due only in December 2018, there is no immediate challenge to his administration.

But political analysts believe that a few important developments could flow from the present election.

Koike joined the LDP in 2002 and rose to occupy several important ministerial and party positions in the following years. In 2016, she decided to leave the LDP and contest the Tokyo gubernatorial election much to the chagrin of the LDP bosses. She defeated the official LDP candidate Hiroya Masuda in the election and became the first woman governor of Tokyo. She soon started her own party called Tomin First no Kai (Tokyo Citizens Party ) and has been articulating her views on a range of issues related to women, senior citizens, physically challenged, equal opportunities in education, etc. In order to implement her various development measures, she argued, it would be essential to have a cooperative metropolitan assembly. She has now succeeded in realising that. In the new assembly she will have a comfortable majority to support her various policy measures. In the last one year, she has carefully projected herself as one who is deeply interested in the welfare of the citizens of Tokyo.

Abe’s detractors within the party like Shigeru Ishiba may not like Abe to get the third term of the party presidency. The party election is due in September 2018. Ishiba took the present electoral debacle very seriously to embarrass Abe. In addition, the approval rates for Abe, as shown in some latest opinion surveys, have also come down to 49% from 56% due to the controversial involvement of Abe in a case where he is reported to have shown favours to his friends for starting a veterinary school in a special economic zone. As if it was not enough, Tomomi Inada, Japan’s defence minister, stirred up a political controversy implicating Japan’s Self-defence Forces in the Tokyo Assembly election.

The political situation has suddenly changed and Abe is likely to modify his political agenda in the coming months. Earlier he was toying with the idea of preponing the lower house election. But now, many in the party feel that the LDP may lose its present massive strength if elections are held now. Similarly, many party leaders also feel that Abe should be more circumspect in choosing the time for constitutional amendments.

One has to wait and watch how Abe is going to make his political moves in the coming weeks. But he is most likely to reshuffle his cabinet soon, taking into account the need for inducting people who will make the government more cohesive and less controversy-ridden.

Disabled Americans came in wheelchairs into the United States Senate to register their protest against the harsh Republican plan to slash health care. ADAPT, a disability rights group, staged a die-in right before the office of the leading Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. About 60 protesters tried to block the entrance to McConnell’s office. Their goal was to show the rest of America what would come out of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which the Republicans sought to push through as an alternative to Obamacare. The police arrested 43 protesters and wheeled out others from McConnell’s hallway. The McConnell plan would slash Medicare, a government plan that provides health-care coverage for low-income Americans and for those with disabilities. One of the elements of the plan envisages cutting funds for in-home assistance that allows disabled Americans to remain in their own homes rather than move to nursing homes. Fourteen million Americans will lose any access to health insurance.

One of the people who got out of her wheelchair to be arrested was Stephanie Woodward, director of advocacy for the Center for Disability Rights. She was arrested by the officers in the Senate, who carried her out. “We have a right to live,” Stephanie Woodward said. “And by live, I don’t mean just breathe. I mean be a part of the American dream, be in the community, raise a family, go to work. These Medicaid cuts will force people into institutions who don’t need to be there.”

Harsh budget

Evidence of a major assault by the Trump administration on the social safety net in the U.S. was already there in Trump’s budget proposal. He sought to cut funds for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Medicaid and the Interagency Council on Homelessness. Cuts to affordable housing and to homeless assistance programmes were a centrepiece. But so too are cuts that would hurt the disabled. Sally Johnston, president of the Disabled in Action of Greater Syracuse, said: “Trump’s proposed budget will cut trillions of dollars in domestic services. How can this make America better?”

Harshness towards the vulnerable defines Trump’s agenda. There was a whisper of this when Trump mocked a disabled reporter for The New York Times, Serge Kovaleski, and when 12-year-old J.J. Holmes, who has cerebral palsy, was ejected from a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida. The disregard shown to people with disabilities reveals the kind of agenda that Trump was always going to drive. Generosity towards people is not his metier. His is a harsh project, to push aside the vulnerable in a social Darwinist drive to excellence. Weakness is reviled. Strength is applauded.

In late June, Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin married the Scottish actress Louise Linton. They had a lavish wedding, attended by Trump, his Vice President and most of the Cabinet. Mnuchin and Louise Linton live in a $12.6 million home in an exclusive part of Washington, D.C. The money is Mnuchin’s, what he made as a partner in Goldman Sachs. Mnuchin is not the only fabulously wealthy person in Trump’s cabinet. He sits at Cabinet meetings near Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Deputy Commerce Secretary Todd Ricketts. Trump’s Chief Economic Adviser is Gary Cohn, another former Goldman Sachs president. All are worth hundreds of millions of dollars each.

At a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, just after the Mnuchin wedding, Trump mused about the wealth in his Cabinet. “Somebody said—why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? No, it’s true. And Wilbur’s a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said—Because that’s the kind of thinking we want’.” What kind of thinking would that be? The thinking of someone who was willing to set aside any social agenda for his individual gain.

Trump’s base is made of a combination of people of great wealth—who are few—and the immense white-collar middle-class sector that has found itself made vulnerable by globalisation. Business process outsourcing struck the white-collar middle class, which formed the base of the Tea Party and then the Trump movement. He promised this base that he would not become wedded to Wall Street but would put Main Street in charge. That has not come to pass. “I love all people, rich or poor,” Trump said, “but in those particular positions I don’t want a poor person.” No poor or middle-class person should direct commercial or budgetary policy. That should be left to the rich. This is an honest assessment of Trump’s project—to appeal to the mass of white-collar vulnerable workers, but to deliver the reins of power to the very wealthy.

In a new book, Duke University professor Nancy MacLean goes into the intellectual roots of the radical Right and the vision of the current agenda, as articulated by Trump. The Right, she shows in Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of The Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, is interested in the destruction of “society” and the creation of pure individualism. Charles Koch, one of the major financiers of the radical Right, relied upon Baldy Harper. Harper argued, decades ago, that support for vulnerable populations would erode liberty. He suggested that liberal policies that helped the poor and the disadvantaged would be like a disease against society. “Once the disease has advanced,” he wrote, “a bitter curative medicine is required to gain already-lost liberty.” These are harsh words. The idea of a “bitter curative medicine” is something that is natural to the Trump team. The vicious knives they wield against any social policy for the poor and the vulnerable are sharp and are used with gusto. One can see the way they cut away at precious social policies in the budget and in their health care plans.

Nancy MacLean describes the agenda of the economist James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics. Buchanan is a favourite of the radical Right, for whom he acts as an important intellectual standard. A clear sentiment of Buchanan’s vision is available in a 2005 document, where he attacks people who have not been able to save enough for unforeseen circumstances or for retirement. If they fall catastrophically ill or lose their jobs, they should have prepared for this eventuality through prudent savings. If not, Buchanan wrote, they “are to be treated as subordinate members of the species, akin to animals who are dependent”. The language here is ferocious. It is mimicked by Trump and his Cabinet.

Let us return to Trump’s budget. He proposes to cut $2.5 trillion in programmes for the working class and the indigent. Food stamps, the essential means for the poorest Americans to access food, would go. It is important to underline that one in six Americans struggles with hunger—49 million Americans have a hard time putting food on their tables. One in five children is at risk of hunger, with the ratio higher—one in three—for African-American and Latino families. There will be no easy way for Americans who struggle with food insecurity to feed themselves. They will be left to starve, like “subordinate members of the species”.

‘Poverty a state of mind’

In a radio interview, Trump’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson said: “I think poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind.” Aid to the poor, says the Trump team, does not work. The poor must be made to “go to work”, said Trump’s Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. But how to go to work when jobs are simply unavailable, as Trump himself has said on many occasions? In fact, the office that helps the poor find jobs has also been slated to be cut. That means even those few programmes to assist the unemployed to find work will no longer be available. In fact, as New York University Professor Jonathan Morduch and Rachael Schneider say in their new book The Financial Diaries: How American Families Cope in a World of Uncertainty, even those who have jobs at low pay struggle to make ends meet. Many of them rely on government assistance to get by. If they do not get access to government programmes, they turn to credit card loans and payday loans to cover their bills. There is great fragility in the budgets of the working poor.

There is cruelty in Trump’s vision. It throws the poor to the lions of desperation. The remnants of liberalism are being withdrawn. This is the end of the social contract.

This article originally appeared in Frontline (India) and is reprinted with permission.

(RFE/RL) — The United States and Russia announced a cease-fire deal in southwestern Syria on July 7, in their first attempt at peacemaking in the war-torn country since President Donald Trump took office.

The cease-fire, due to start on July 9, was announced after a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany.

The deal appeared to give Trump a diplomatic achievement at his first meeting with Putin, though it was months in the making.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called it the “first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria” and said it would be followed by peacemaking efforts in other parts of Syria.

“We had a very lengthy discussion regarding other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate the areas and the violence, once we defeat [the Islamic State extremist group],” he said.

Tillerson said Russia and the United States would “work together towards a political process that will secure the future of the Syrian people.”

While the two countries back opposing sides in Syria’s six-year civil war, Tillerson said by and large their objectives in Syria “are exactly the same.”

Russia and Iran are the main allies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Washington supports some of the rebel groups fighting to topple him.

A senior State Department official later said the deal could be the beginning of a more robust pacification effort in Syria, where more than half a million people have been killed and millions displaced from their homes.

“Some months ago, we made a conscious decision to focus on one part of the conflict initially, and that was the southwest. For a variety of reasons, it seemed like a more manageable part… That doesn’t preclude a desire on our part to look at other parts of Syria in the coming weeks and months,” he said.

“We are starting with fairly modest ambitions,” he said, but the administration hopes the deal “sets the stage for a more auspicious environment for what we ultimately hope is a productive political process that can, that could lead to a more substantial and permanent resolution of the underlying conflict.”

Previous cease-fires have failed to hold for long and it was not clear how much the actual combatants in Syria — Assad’s government, armed Syrian rebel groups, and Iranian-backed militias — are committed to this latest effort.

The Syrian government and the Southern Front, the main grouping of Western-backed rebel groups in southwest Syria, did not immediately react to the announcement. The Syrian government had already announced a unilateral cease-fire in parts of the area.

One group of Syria rebels involved in Syrian peace negotiations said it had “great concern over the secret meetings between Russia and Jordan and America to conclude an individual deal for southern Syria in isolation from the north.”

It called the cease-fire for only one region bordering Jordan an “unprecedented event” that “divides Syria and the opposition.”

It was not immediately clear which areas of southwestern Syria would be covered by the cease-fire, but earlier talks between the United States and Russia about a “de-escalation zone” covered Deraa province, on the border with Jordan, and Quneitra, which borders the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon welcomed any cease-fire in Syria but wanted to see results on the ground.

“The recent history of the Syrian civil war is littered with cease-fires, and it would be nice…one day to have a cease-fire” that succeeds, he said.

Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ) management in Ankara closed 30 years of Nuclear education in 1999. More than 2000 M.Sc. and Ph.D. thesis on nuclear technology are standing idle in the library shelves since then. METU has decided to educate the environment and renewable energy. Metu Management has no intention of re-opening the nuclear issue.

However, Nuclear power plant design, engineering, manufacturing, assembly and operation are the sub-discipline of Mechanical Engineering. The nuclear plant is in principle a thermal plant. Nuclear fuel is used instead of fossil fuel. It is completely a thermal power plant design after the nuclear core. Mechanical Engineers can not be far from nuclear technology.

***

In 2007, a joint study of USA and Israel produced a computer virus named “Stuxnet v.0.5”. In 2009, the virus was transmitted to the computers of Siemens Scada, the control center of the Iranian Busheir Natanz Nuclear Power Plants, with confidential permission of the US President and the work of secret services and memory sticks. All PCs in the plant, all PCs in the employees’ houses were crashed. All have been defeated. The plant construction procurement process is delayed by 2 (two) years.

Meanwhile, the virus was isolated by Iranian computer engineers, the architecture was resolved, more dangerous joints were made, and it was sent back out of Iran. Stuxnet is now out of control in the globe. In the past years, 2 (two) each of 1000 Mwe strong US Nuclear Power Plant was disabled for 3 weeks due to this virus. The loss estimated an estimated US $ 100 million.

Every call you make with Google, every contact you make with gmail, is watched by “Big Brother”. That’s why Iran has stopped using Google and gmail.

The Stuxnet v0.5 Virus and its new clone virus (Flame) have become a very dangerous war weapon. In the future it will not only stop the nuclear control systems, it could now claim out of control. Valves, pumps, control systems may not work or they may work incorrectly or in reverse if any accident has occur, to open or close, which may result in a new “Three-Mile Island”, “Chernobyl” or “Fukushima” disaster. If such an attack is made on Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant control room computers, who will control power plant security? Is there any security weakness? It sounds like science-fiction disaster, but that’s the reality.

In modern times, fighting soldiers no longer use ammunition, guns, rifles, or guns. Syber soldier engineers working on the screen now appeared. Unmanned aerial vehicles are controlled from the US base in Nevada and they are operating in Afghanistan air space.

Our geography is a difficult environment. We have to be strong in order to continue our existence in this difficult geography. We have to provide deterrence against dangerous neighbors with nuclear weapons around us. Defense partnerships are not enough. We need to have conventional weapons and, if necessary, also nuclear weapons. We need unmanned aerial vehicles (drone), ATAK helicopters, F-16 or F-35 aircraft, nuclear weapons. So it is difficult to think of a nuclear-free Turkey.

When the results could not be obtained in normal methods, in 2010, Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant Project was directly tendered to the Northern Neighbor in a closed, secret, imposing easy way to interrogate. The first budget price was 20 billion US Dollars and the first operation was planned in 2020. Then the project execution revision was made. The budget price was increased, the first operating date was moved forward. There is 49% Turkish minority share ownership in the contractor group. Waste control and central computer controls – safety are not clear to public. The construction initiative is no longer in our control.

In our geography we need nuclear technology, reasonable capacity nuclear power plant. But how accurate is the capacity, location and method applied? A political project can only be financed by a political loan. Political credit ends in time. Large projects run with commercial credit support. It is too difficult, or perhaps impossible, to find a commercial loan for a political project.

It is not possible to control the base design of the project.
There are a lot of questions.
How to cool Akkuyu nuclear plant with very hot (average + 30C) sea water?
Who will handle waste management?
How will the wastes be transported, where will they be transported?
How is the “Waste Storage” to save the environment and humans in case of any accident,
Is there any “emergency evacuation plan”?

Every year we send 75-80 young students to our Northern Neighbor. At this point in time, some of them must have their graduation. Where are they employed? Are they are trained in nuclear plant management, not nuclear design engineers, but rather as nuclear plant operators? How are we going to give the nuclear power plant responsibility to the inexperienced new graduates?

Bursa Orhaneli 210 Mwe thermal power plant, Seydişehir Aluminum Plants, Iskenderun Iron and Steel Factory, previously constructed by our Northern neighbor with the same procurement method, however they have not been able to work smoothly in our environment. The arctic designs of our Northern Neighbors that are only compatible with their very cold climate, are not suitable to our warm climate. They quickly breakdown in operation and do not show market consistency and continuity.

In France, 79% of electricity is produced from nuclear power plants, but all nuclear power plants are of French design, French fabrication. The operation is entirely carried out by French personnel. They have problems in waste management, but everything is solved by themselves. The solution is themselves. There is no stranger third party in the middle. Ours is completely foreign to us. Your writer does not know how this will work, and worries about the final outcome.

The existence of nuclear weapons is an ugly symbol of the violent consciousness that plagues humanity. Despite tremendous technological advancements, developments in health care and wonders of creative expression, little of note has changed in humanity’s collective consciousness: Tribalism, idealism and selfish desire persist, negative tendencies that under the pervasive socio-economic systems are exacerbated and encouraged. People and nations are set in competition with one another, separation and mistrust is fed, leading to disharmony, fear and conflict.

Such engineered insecurity is used as justification for nations to maintain a military force, and in the case of the world’s nuclear powers, arm themselves with weapons that, if used, would destroy all life, human and sub-human alike. Despite this, unlike biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions, possession of nuclear weapons is not prohibited under international law, although launching them would, according to CND, breach a plethora of conventions and declarations.

Sustainable security is not created through threats and the cultivation of fear, but by building relationships, cooperating and establishing trust. As long as nuclear weapons exist there is a risk of them being used, of an accident – and there have been many close shaves since 1948 – and subsequent annihilation. As the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANW) rightly states, “Prohibiting and completely eliminating nuclear weapons is the only guarantee against their use.” The rational thing to do is to move towards a nuclear free world and with some urgency; this necessarily entails the nuclear powers disarming, either unilaterally or bilaterally. Someone has to begin the process; by taking the moral initiative others will be under pressure to follow, whereas, as former US Secretary of State George Shultz put it, “proliferation begets proliferation.”

Clearing the world of these monstrous machines would not only be a major step in safeguarding humanity and the planet, it would represent a triumph of humane principles of goodness — peace, unity, cooperation — over hate, suspicion and discord.

There can be little doubt that the vast majority of people and nations in the world would like nuclear weapons to be decommissioned, it is the Governments of some of the most powerful countries that stand as obstacles to common-sense and progress: Corporate-State governments motivated not by a burning desire to help create a peaceful world at ease with itself, but driven by self-interest, pressure from financial investors and the demands of the arms-industry.

Towards the end of 2016, the United Nations general assembly adopted a landmark resolution to begin to “negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” Talks began in February this year, when the first leg of a two stage conference was held in New York; 123 nations voted to outlaw them, while the nine nuclear powers (USA, China, France, Britain, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea), rather predictably stood in opposition to a ban and voted against the proposal, as did nuclear host and alliance countries such as Belgium, Italy, Croatia and Norway, among others: Shame on them all. These obstructive governments do not represent the wishes of their populations, their motives are corrupt, their actions irresponsible.

It’s interesting to note that the countries that possess nuclear weapons seem to believe it’s fine for them to have these tools of destruction, but not for other nations, particularly those that have a different world view. Between them, these nine nations boast around 15,000 nuclear weapons; America and Russia own 93% of the total of which some 1,800 are reportedly kept on ‘high-alert status’, meaning they can be launched within minutes. Just one of these warheads, if detonated on a large city, could kill millions of people, with the effects persisting for decades.

Modern nuclear weapons are a great deal smaller and many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which, far from ending the war, was completely unnecessary, and caused death and destruction on a scale hitherto unseen. As Admiral William D. Leahy, the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military at the time wrote in his memoirs, the atomic bomb “was of no material assistance” against Japan, because “the Japanese were already defeated.” General Dwight D. Eisenhower echoed this view, saying, “Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of ‘face’. It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” In dropping the bombs, Leahy said, the U.S. “had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

False, Expensive Logic

The perverse attitude surrounding the possession of nuclear weapons was evident during the UK election campaign when Jeremy Corbyn – a lifelong peace activist and co-founder of the Stop the War Campaign – was repeatedly criticized by the right-wing media (including the BBC), Conservative politicians and manipulated members of the public, for refusing to say whether he would, or would not launch a nuclear attack. He met such irrational hypotheticals with composure and suppressed irritation, saying that he would do all he could to avert conflict in the first place and that every effort should be made to rid the world of these ultimate weapons of mass destruction.

He is right and should be applauded for taking such a sane, common-sense approach, but the collective imagination has been poisoned to such a degree that advocating peace, and engaging in dialogue with one’s enemies is regarded as a sign of weakness, whereas sabre rattling and intransigence are hailed as displays of strength.

In addition to the rick of human and planetary death, the financial costs of producing, maintaining and developing these instruments of terror is staggering and diverts resources from areas of real need – health care, education, dealing with the environmental catastrophe, and eradicating hunger. Globally, ICAN reports that the “annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at USD 105 Billion – or $12 million an hour. Unsurprisingly America spends the largest amount by far; equivalent in fact to the other eight nuclear-armed nations combined. Between 2010 and 2018 the US will spend at least $179 billion and probably more, while 50 million of its citizens live in grinding poverty.

In 2002 the World Bank forecast that “an annual investment of just US$40–60 billion, or roughly half the amount currently spent on nuclear weapons, would be enough to meet the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals on poverty alleviation by the target date of 2015.” But the powerful and tooled up prefer to invest in an arsenal of total destruction. It makes no sense; it is another example of the insanity that surrounds us.

The irrational political choice of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is justified by duplicitous politicians as a means of establishing of peace; it is they claim, a necessary deterrent against aggression. This is not only dishonest, it is totally false logic: far from making the world a safer place, the very possession of nuclear weapons by any one country allows for and encourages there proliferation, thereby increasing the risk of them being used, or accidentally detonated.

If retaining nuclear weapons is not to deter would be invaders what is the reason for the massive financial investment and the dangers that are inherent in patrolling the Earth with these weapons of total destruction?

National image and bravado, the men with the biggest sticks ruling the roost, sitting around the UN Security Council (a remnant of the past that should be scrapped altogether) is, no doubt, one factor, but the primary reason why the nuclear powers consistently block moves to rid the world of these killing machines lies in the world of business. The companies and financial investors involved in developing, manufacturing and maintaining the weapons as well as trading in related technology, parts or services do not want to see an end to the cash cow of nuclear indulgence.

In its detailed report Don’t Bank on the Bomb ICAN relates that in America, Britain, India and France private companies are given contracts worth billions of USD to develop “new, more useable, and more destabilizing nuclear weapons.” In Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea this work is done by government agencies, where no doubt corruption is rife. Financial institutions, including high-street banks and insurance companies, are investing in companies involved in manufacturing and maintaining nuclear weapons; such organizations should reveal their investments and be boycotted by the public. I would go further and say that investment in firms connected with making these abominations should be illegal.

If peace is the collective objective, nuclear weapons must be regarded as a major obstacle and those connected in their construction, including investors, seen as collaborators in the creation of an atmosphere of mistrust and conflict, facilitators of fear and insecurity. The contemporary threats to national security come not from potential armed invasion, but from terrorism, cyber-security issues, poverty and the environmental catastrophe – which, unless drastic steps are taken, will result in an unprecedented worldwide refugee crisis. In the light of such threats, nuclear weapons as a so-called deterrent are irrelevant.

Peace will not be established by ever-larger arsenals of nuclear weapons held by more and more nations, it will be built on a firm foundation of trust, and as Pope Francis has said “on the protection of creation, and the participation of all in public life,” as well as “access to education and health, on dialogue and solidarity.” It is by negating the causes of conflict that peace will be allowed to flourish. Such causes are rooted in social injustice, community divisions, prejudice and discrimination, competition and inequality, and must be countered by demonstrations of tolerance, the cultivation of cooperation and expression of compassion.

Islamic State terrorists have claimed responsibility for a deadly attack on Egyptian forces on the Sinai Peninsula in which at least 23 soldiers lost their lives. Despite the heavy casualties, the military claims it foiled the major assault, killing dozens of terrorists.

At least 33 others were wounded in the major militant assault on an Egyptian army checkpoint near Rafah Friday, according to the latest figures reported by AP.

The attack in North Sinai started with at least one suicide bomber ramming a vehicle into the army’s outpost which had roughly 60 soldiers.

Immediately after the security perimeter of the outpost was breached, a small army of jihadists traveling in 24 Land Cruiser SUVs, and armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades, descended on the Egyptian armed forces, Reuters reported citing security officials.

In a battle that reportedly lasted roughly half an hour, the militants allegedly managed to loot some weapons and ammunition before fleeing, officials familiar with the matter told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The Egyptian military succeeded in taking down dozens of militants despite their heavy losses.

“Security forces in North Sinai have successfully foiled a terrorist assault on some checkpoints south of Rafah, killing 40 militants,” the army said in a statement, Ahram online reported.

Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) claimed the responsibility for the deadly assault, claiming that two suicide car bombers initiated the attack while jihadists who were willing to die engaged the troops. The terrorist group claimed the attack was launched just prior to the start of the Egyptian army’s operation against the terrorists in the region.

The Sinai province – which is located in Egypt’s remote desert region and borders the Gaza Strip, Israel, and the Suez Canal – has been confronted by an Islamist insurgency which has claimed the lives of hundreds of security officers in the region. Terrorists have battled the Egyptian army for years but have intensified their attacks following the ousting of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in July 2013.

By Seyyed Ali Nejat*

During past years, Iran has been faced with domestic instability and insecurity in three countries, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The most prominent manifestation of this instability has been emergence of Daesh terrorist group. Daesh terrorist group, which has its roots in the Salafist Jihadist-Takfiri discourse, not only gives rise to regional and international threats in general, but specifically poses threats to security and national interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well.

Among the most important threats and challenges caused by the emergence of Daesh in the region for the Islamic Republic of Iran one can mention terrorist operations, security threats against the Iranian government, weakening of the resistance front in the region and creating a safe margin for the Zionist regime of Israel, geopolitical threat, and finally, soft and discourse-based threat.

Before Daesh made its debut in the region, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) – also known by its Arabic name as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, which was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – had frequently threatened Iran with terrorist and suicide operations.

On the other hand, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the former spokesperson of Daesh, had threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran by saying that Daesh planned to turn Iran into a quagmire of blood, noting that Daesh considered Iran as its worst enemy. Abu al-Hassan al-Muhajir, the current official spokesperson of Daesh, also released a voice message titled “And Remain Patient, because God’s Promise Is True,” in which he threatened certain regional countries, including Iran. In addition, Daesh terrorist group released a 37-minute video clip on March 26, 2017, in which it officially threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran.

During recent years, terrorist groups as well as armed elements affiliated with Daesh have made great efforts to implement terrorist operations in Iran, but their agents have been nabbed and their plans have been discovered and thwarted by Iran’s security forces before they were put into action. An example was defusing a major terrorist operation in Tehran last year by Iran’s Intelligence Ministry in which about ten terrorists were arrested.

The success of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s secret services in identifying about 100 terrorist groups in the past two years and causing failure of their measures has prompted some analysts and research centers in Arab countries, especially in Saudi Arabia, to accuse Iran of supporting terrorism and Daesh. This comes despite the fact that Iran has been a major victim of global terrorism during the past four decades.

The hostility and enmity of Salafist and terrorist groups toward Iran, in particular, and Shias, in general, is nothing new and not a secret too. Daesh terrorist groups has been describing Iranians as “apostates,” “Safavids” and “Magi” in his public announcements. On the whole, the Islamic Republic of Iran is considered as one of the most important enemies of Daesh due to ideological differences with this group, on the one hand, and its support for governments in Iraq and Syria, on the other hand.

Daesh has made Shia Muslims one of its main goals, and due to the prominent and vital role that Shiism plays in defining the Iranian identity, one can claim that this terrorist group has targeted the foundation of Iran and its threat for Iran is an existential threat.

Another reason behind hostility of Daesh toward our country is Iran’s presence in the front line of the fight on terrorism and its support for governments in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s timely intervention and its military, intelligence and security presence to help the Iraqi and Syrian armies were among the most important barriers to progress and expansion of Daesh in these two countries, in particular, and across the region, in general. In other words, Daesh considers Iran as the main reason behind its failures in Iraq and Syria and this is why it wants to take revenge on Iran.

Another reason behind Daesh’s terrorist measures against Iran is its consecutive defeats in its battles in Iraq and Syria. There is one principle with regard to terrorist and extremist groups according to which, whenever they feel weak and defeated and are cornered, they embark on terrorist operations in other countries in order to hide their defeats and boost the morale of their supports and forces and also to motivate them and recruit more people.

However, when it comes to timing of terrorist attacks in Iran by Daesh, one can say that this measure came following certain regional developments such as a visit to Saudi Arabia and Israel by US president Donald Trump. It also followed a threat by Saudi crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, who is also the country’s defense minister, to the effect that he would take the war into Iran and his threat was finally put into action by Daesh terrorist group.

As for the location of the aforesaid terrorist attacks, it is noteworthy that Daesh targeted two symbols of the Islamic Republic of Iran in his terror attacks. The first location was the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini, who is not only a religious figure respected by all Muslims, but also the founder and symbol of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The second target was Iran’s parliament, the Islamic Consultative Assembly, which is an important pillar of democracy in the country. In fact, by choosing these targets, Daesh was trying to take aim at two most important pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In conclusion, it must be noted that following these terror attacks, Daesh is possible to try to make the Islamic Republic of Iran further insecure by carrying out more terrorist and suicide attacks. Paying more attention to regional developments, increasing vigilance inside the country, adoption of necessary security precautions, coordination among all Iranian institutions, and effective cooperation of people with intelligence and security organizations and institutions are necessary steps to be taken in order to stave off such terrorist measures in the future.

These views represent those of the author and are not necessarily Iran Review’s viewpoints.

*Seyyed Ali Nejat
West Asia Analyst

While Israel allows the USA to mediate and agrees for talks with Palestinians Americans and others on the issue of establishment of Palestine with full membership of UN – though without honestly or sincerity and just for the sake of fooling the Palestinians and world at large as a serious peace wisher – its new strategic partner in terrorism related issues India does not allow any other nation to mediate between Pakistan and India and even refuses to talk directly to Pakistan on Kashmir; India is interested only in its favorite theme “terrorism” and does not talk to Pakistan about Kashmir.

Palestinians are being besieged by the militaries of Israel and Egypt through terror blockades and the state terrorist forces keep attacking the Palestinians, killing them in hundreds and thousands and destroying their properties worth billions of US dollars and confiscating lands for future illegal settlements’ construction for criminal Jews imported from abroad. India just kills Kashmiris as part of its sadistic strategy to silence them from seeking sovereignty for an independent nation as it had existed before it was invaded and annexed by India and Pakistan. Already over 1000,000 Kashmiris have been slaughtered by the paid Indian forces as the jungle beasts do and apparently their blood thirst is not fully quenched so far.

Meanwhile, a veto power China got a part of Kashmir from Pakistan’s share of Jammu Kashmir, making it implicit in the crimes committed against humanity in Kashmir. So, China also, like India and Pakistan, occupies Kashmir, hereby further complicating the sovereignty struggle of Kashmiris. India, the major occupant of alien Jammu Kashmir, is very bold today to tell the world and UN nothing doing about Kashmir.

Not really seeking to end bloodbath in Kashmir, occupation nuclear powers India, Pakistan or China never mention about sovereignty for Kashmiris. While India and China do not say anything about the future of Kashmir, Pakistan wants a plebiscite to determine the majority opinion of Kashmiris about their future, hoping that Kashmiris would prefer Pakistan to India which is seen by Kashmiris as occupying terrorist nation.

For India, Jammu & Kashmir is a part of India and its constitution and it does not want to talk to anybody on that issue. Pakistan asks India to discuss the Kashmir issue and let peace return to South Asia. India as well as Pakistan have very tactfully acquired nuclear weapons illegally against the will of IAEA, thanks to defend their illegal joint occupation of Jammu Kashmir ad not to let Kashmiris regain their lost sovereignty. In fact, much of the cross border cross fires across the LOC is meant to terrorize the Kashmiris living in both asides of occupied Jammu Kashmir.

India refuses to say that Kashmir was invaded and annexed with the help of the then Hindu ruler of Kashmir. Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solve a problem, many Indians would say.
One could laugh at UN, USA, UK, India and Pakistan for crudely directing the Kashmiris to choose between India and Pakistan. How can in the modern world a nation could be asked to join the neighboring nations on either side and become a occupied slaves?

Why should Kashmiris accept rthe ule of a foreign power – India or Pakistan – just because they have got strong militaries and large arsenals of terror goods, including WMD? Anyone who can read an authentic history of Kashmir would testify that it was a sovereign nation for centuries but ruled by many invading rulers, including Hindus and UK. Now India and Pakistan occupy the nation of Kashmiris. While Pakistan does not kill any Kashmiri, India does just exactly that, just keep killing them by calling them the “terrorists” and “insurgents”. Recently several secret graveyards have been discovered in Kashmir and obviously they were Kashmiris who protested against Indian misrule through militarization of Kashmir valley.

Indian terror strategists think attack on Kashmiris and terrorism alone can help India retain Jammu Kashmir as a mere state within India. Hence Indian military over powered to deal with Kashmiris who do accept Indian yoke. Indian media lords eagerly wait for “reports” of Kashmiri “terrorists” being killed by Indian “patriotic” solders. Military attacks on Kashmiri youth continues unabated and India has sought costly terror drones from the newly found strategic partner Israel.

India officially rejects talks on Kashmir and uses the USA and Israel, among other colonialist powers to support its Kashmiri case. India begs Russia, which is the largest seller of terror goods to New Delhi, not to sell terror goods to Pakistan or support its Kashmir case. India on July 07 rejected peace talk’s offer from United States to facilitate and resolve Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. India has consistently ruled out talks with Pakistan and any third party mediation, including that by the UN or the USA. Pakistan on the contrary welcomes international mediation and also encourages the USA and the UN to help resolve its disputes with India.

This impression of not accepting a third or even second party mediation by India was extremely peculiar. This in itself reflects a grim picture of the Indian reluctance in resolving the issue and maintaining bilateral relation with Pakistan and future Kashmir.

Like Israel on Palestine freedom issue, New Delhi has taken it for granted that Kashmir should not be resolved and pays huge sum to USA to oppose both Pakistan and Kashmiris or at least help delay it and keep it an unsettled issue. It wasn’t also surprising that PM Modi’s only problem is that he lacks a political aide with sufficient heft to take the conversation forward. Congress also hates both Pakistanis and Kashmiris.

To gain sympathy of Americans and Jews, India hides its Kashmir terror designs and fails diplomacy in resolving the Kashmir issue and make genuine ties with Pakistan and Afghanistan, instead of promoting hidden agendas in the region. In fact, India does not want good neighborly relations with Pakistan, fearing that would make India also lose Kashmir and its nuclear terror goods. Thus, the on-and-off resumption of dialogue drama has become more of a pattern between the strained India-Pakistan relations.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since becoming independent countries in 1947, two of them over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which both claim in full but rule in part. Sharif, elected in 2013, promised to improve relations with India. But since then domestic troubles have forced him to cede more control over foreign and security policy to Pakistan’s military. Indian PM Modi has taken a hard line with Pakistan, insisting he is unwilling to discuss other issues unless Pakistan admits its role in terror attacks in India.

Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif signed the Lahore Declaration in 1999 to say that the two countries would intensify efforts to resolve all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. Pursuant to the directive given by their respective Prime Minister to adopt measures for promoting a stable environment of peace, and security between the two countries — But today, India pretends Kashmiris are happy being occupied by Indian forces and there is no final settlement to be made.

Interestingly, India’s confrontational policy regarding Pakistan is also visible in the provocative statements at the BRICS Summit in Goa. At a rally in Goa the then military minster Parrikar said: “If someone looks at the country with an evil eye, we will gouge his eyes out and put them back in his hand; we have that much power.” That is indeed the Indian variety of state fascism. Apart from the above factors importantly former RAW chief Dulat talks about the need for communication and respect for resolving the Kashmir dispute. His views in advocating low military presence in Kashmir created a lot of ripples. He also argued the need for India to build confidence amongst Kashmiris through humanitarian measures.

It is crucial to mention the Kashmir issue continues to remain at the heart of all debates between the two countries, however, India has set the fires of war alight instead of dealing with the situation through negotiations. For India, it is a matter of domestic concern and does not seek any external interference where a resolution on that front seems like an impossible dream. For some Indians occupation of another country makes India great and admirable among big powers.

With the recent rejection of mediation India also is trying to play an upper hand by blocking the peace dialogue between the two nations. Indian media lords, particularly the TV channels in English enjoy as their prime hobby by insulting Pakistan and asking USA to end aid to Islamabad and urgently make India a veto member. Indian strategists relish too much sadist pleasure by continually snubbing Pakistan and its peace offer.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced his proposal at the annual United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, saying the two nuclear-armed countries should formalize a ceasefire in Kashmir and take steps to demilitarize the divided region. India quickly issued a swift rebuttal, accusing Pakistan of claiming to be the primary ’victim of terrorism’ while “in truth, it is actually a victim of its own policy of breeding and sponsoring terrorists.”

Planned talks between national security advisers from India and Pakistan were canceled in August hours before they were due to start, dashing hopes the two might tackle the violence that many fear could one day spark a nuclear showdown. In the talks, India had wanted only to discuss terrorism-related issues. Pakistan sought a wider agenda, including the status of Kashmir.

India’s foreign secretary J. Shankar wrote a letter to Islamabad, in which it was mentioned that “India would not hold dialogue with Pakistan over Kashmir issue.” Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad Bambawale handed over the letter to Pakistani Foreign Affairs Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry. Earlier this month, a letter was written by Foreign Affairs secretary to his Indian counterpart Shankar, inviting him to visit Islamabad to hold bilateral talks on the disputed territories of Jammu and Kashmir. India has rejected the proposal saying that it would only hold talk with Pakistan on its favorite theme terrorism and the alleged infiltration of militants from the Line of Control (LoC).

The letter written by Pakistan had highlighted the international obligation of both countries to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council. The offer by Pakistan was made despite the Independence Day speech of Indian PM Modi in which he spoke about alleged human rights abuses in Balochistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

In order to force Pakistan to stop talking about Kashmir once for all, now a days, New Delhi pokes its nose in Balochistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

In order to force Kashmiris to shelve their demand for sovereignty, Indian forces use state terror techniques, killing them to silence them.

In August the adviser to PM on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz had offered a dedicated dialogue to India on Kashmir and observed that India’s policy of not engaging in a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan was not conducive for peace in South Asia.

In fact, India does not care for what Pakistan or China thinks about the Kashmir issue but it cannot digest a map of India without Kashmir on its top like its head. Jammu Kashmir is not just the beautiful place with a lot of fruits, eye catching sceneries for shooting, it is a heaven for one of the greatest prophets on earth before the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (SAS) who lived and passed away there. Most likely Britishers do believe that. How can that heaven be annexed and heavily militarized by India in order to kill the Kashmiris in a sustained manner?

Kashmiris and Human Rights groups have been demanding demilitarization of Kashmir valley and let Kashmiris live peacefully. But India refuses to oblige popular sentiments as it wants to keep Kashmiris tensed and terrorized.

India treats Pakistan like any of its cricketism partners purchased for the IPL and being used for boosting the false image of fanatic India. India wants Pakistan to close the Kashmir matter and keep the part of Kashmir it occupies and never ask for more land from Indian illegal possession. And therefore, India formally rejected Pakistan’s proposal to hold exclusive talks on the issue of Kashmir and said it will only discuss the issue of terrorism alleged infiltration of militants with Pakistan.
A soverign Kashmir would promote peace in the region. Kashmir has been and a sensitive issue, crucial to the relationship that the two nations share. India must understand it is blocking peace and prosperity of South Asia by refusing to resolve the Kashmir issue by allowing them sovereignty so that it could seek UN membership.

True, India is happy to live in perpetual denial and enjoy the status of “terror victim” to join the USA led imperialist powers with fascist intent.

India should not delay the peace process so that a soverign Kashmir become reality as quickly as possible.

UN must take steps to free all nations under foreign occupation and those are colonized by big powers on their military strength.

Hopefully all western countries propagating true democracy would take the lead in releasing the colonized nations from the colonial foreign nations and the process should be conducted and completed in a time frame.

Much like Adam Garrie declared in his recent seminal article in the news periodical The Duran, entitled “5 reasons American foreign policy is insanely dangerous and dangerously insane,” undersigned author is also a loyal Trump supporter, mainly for the reasons echoed in that piece in that Donald Trump appears to be a refreshing break from the past, a proverbial “bull in a china shop” where the Deep State of global oligarchy/plutocracy would get the much deserved “come-uppance” that they deserve, for decades, if not centuries of misguided foreign policy, mass murdering of innocents both foreign and domestic, exploitation and extortion of smaller countries and less advantaged races/religions/ethnicities.

For many of us who supported Donald Trump, it was for the return of America to the fundamental notions of its Founding Fathers with a clear, delineated Bill of Rights and a U.S. Constitution that guaranteed freedom, equality, respect and liberty to all, regardless of race, color, religion or creed.

So it was with a slight grimace of pain to watch President Donald Trump stand side by side with the Polish President, in front of millions of Polish people, crowing on about “Western Civilization,” preserving “Western Values,” and guaranteeing that “Western People” would “thrive” and endure, “never be broken,” and that “Western civilization” would “triumph.”

The fact remains that the United States of America is, and has always been, run and sustained by a vast majority of people who did not hail from the “West,” nor have “Western Values,” whatever that is.

The secret of America’s greatness has always been the filling of jobs and roles and responsibilities in its admittedly “Western” infrastructure, such as its courts, police force, legislature, transportation system, industry, and other arenas by people from all over the world, who have loaned their hard work, industriousness, diligence, thirst to succeed, and ingenuity to advancing America’s interests both domestically, as well as all over the world.

And the truth of the matter is America’s infrastructure and legal incorporation documents, while admittedly drafted by “Western men” predominantly of Anglo-Saxon heritage, those documents were either based on, or completely borrowed/stolen from, other “non-Western” civilizations and great cultures which predated England and Germany by centuries, if not thousands of years.

The “speech” by Donald Trump tried conveniently to take credit for America’s greatness by labeling it “Western Civilization,” when in fact it completely discounted the massive and great contributions (past, present, and future) of, for example, the Jews (Middle Eastern and Eurasian people), the Chinese who built the railroads and transportation system, the Africans who built the entire infrastructure of the nation since before its founding with their blood sweat and tears before, during, and after slavery, the spirit of American independence and respect/love for nature given to us by the Native Americans, the ingenuities to science/technology/software production by the Indians, Chinese and other Asians who left their birth nations in their great “brain drains” to bestow their genius upon the American economy and leadership in global technology and science, the Latin Americans who often feed and grow America’s food supply amongst other major contributions, and the countless other ethnic/religious/racial groups not hailing from the proverbial “West” having “Western Values” that make up the American fabric, and can not, and should not, be discounted or dismissed, as they are in fact the “secret” to America’s “greatness,” not just the people who make up the society of Poland.

This is why Poland and the rest of Europe languishes in “Second World Status,” while the United States of America literally created, and defined, “First World Status.”

America can not solely be considered part and parcel of “Western Civilization,” as that is completely and totally disrespectful and diminishes the achievements, genius, hard work, devotion, loyalty, and bona fide existence of the 90% of America who did not come from or hail from the “Western World.”

If America does not come to terms with this fact, it will soon be eclipsed and left behind when all of the rest of the world finally figures out that they don’t need “Western Civilization” to move forward and progress anyway, and in fact, would probably do better without it.

Dear Steve King: Here are some things not invented by white people

The white inventor argument

Ten Ways Immigrants Help Build and Strengthen Our Economy

The Rise of Asian Americans

Caught between a rock and a hard place, Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has agreed to allow thousands of fans to attend three international soccer matches despite mounting discontent and a growing number of spontaneous protests in defiance of the country’s draconic anti-protest law.

Concerned that soccer pitches could emerge as protest venues, successive Egyptian governments have barred fans from stadiums for much of the past six years since a popular revolt in 2011 forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign after 30 years in office. Militant, street battle-hardened soccer fans played a key role in the toppling of Mr. Mubarak and subsequent anti-government protests.

The government’s decision to allow fans this weekend to attend two African Champions League matches as well as a 2018 World Cup qualifier in September was intended to shield it from being blamed for having prevented Egyptian players from enjoying the vital support of their fans should any of the teams be defeated.

Successive Egyptian governments have repeatedly granted a limited number of fans access to international matches. A one-time government testing in February 2015 of whether stadiums could be opened for domestic league matches ended with clashes in which security forces killed 20 fans. More than 70 fans were killed three years earlier in a politically loaded soccer brawl in the Suez Canal city of Port Said.

Mr. Al-Sisi’s concern was reflected in the government’s decision to allow far fewer fans into the stadium for the club matches than for the national team’s game. The Egyptian Football Association (EFA) said only 10,000 fans would be permitted to attend each of this weekend’s African Champions League matches that pit storied Cairo arch rivals Al Zamalek SC and Al Ahli FC against CAPS United of Zimbabwe and Cameroon’s Coton Sport. By contrast, sports minister Khaled Abdel-Aziz said 70,000 fans would be granted access to the stadium for Egypt’s World Cup qualifier in September against Uganda.

Militant supporters of Zamalek and Ahli played key roles not only in the 2011 revolt but also in student protests against Mr. Al-Sisi’s military coup in 2013 that toppled President Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and Egypt’s first and only democratically elected president.

Mr. Al-Sisi has since banned and brutally suppressed the Brotherhood that is at the centre of the Gulf crisis that pits a Saudi-UAE led coalition, which includes Egypt, against Qatar. Brief hopes earlier this year that Mr. Al-Sisi would reach out to his opponents were dashed when the government designated soccer icon Mohammed Aboutreika as a terrorist because of his alleged links to the Brotherhood and arrest of scores of militant fans.

Playing the soccer card, however, involves more than just the risk of protests erupting on the pitch. Mr. Al-Sisi’s move to include sports in his contribution to the Saudi-UAE-led boycott of Qatar could lead to a sanctioning of the clubs as well as Egypt’s national team. That would defeat the purpose of opening the international matches to the public.

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) has warned that the clubs as well as the national team could be penalized for involving themselves in politics by announcing a boycott of BeIN Sports, the Middle East’s prime satellite sports channel that is part of the Qatar-owned Al Jazeera television network. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt along with others have demanded that Al Jazeera be shuttered.

BeIN owns the Middle East broadcasting rights for the CAF Champions League in which Zamalek and Ahli are competing this weekend. It also has the Middle East rights for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

CAF advised the EFA and the clubs that neutrality and a separation of sports and politics was “part of the statutory missions of CAF and FIFA, as well as the obligations of member associations.” It said that it would be “particularly vigilant as regards respect for these principles of neutrality and independence in all future games played under its aegis.”

Mr. Al-Sisi’s fear of soccer fans is rooted in a history that goes far further back than the 2011 revolt. A nexus of students and soccer fans resurrected the Brotherhood in the 1970s at a time that it was also down and out because of a crackdown by President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 60s who forced many of them to go into exile in the Gulf.

Mr. Al-Sisi’s worries are compounded by fears that widespread discontent could spark a repeat of the protests in 2013 that paved the way for his Saudi and UAE-backed military coup. The protests, partly engineered by the military, erupted on the back of fuel shortages that many believe were artificial.

Fuel is again at the centre of dissatisfaction as Egyptians against a backdrop of an inflation rate of 30 percent this month headed to the petrol pumps to fill up their tanks before subsidies were slashed as part of austerity measures. Belt tightening was a pre-condition for a $12 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The government announced household electricity price hikes ranging from 18 to 42 percent a day before the first of the three matches.

Austerity has worked well for Egypt’s macro-economy with foreign reserves up and a floating Egyptian currency that has stabilized and performed well. The improvements came, however, at the expense of the vast majority of Egyptians, more than a quarter of which live below the poverty line, who have seen steep price increases.

Mr. Al-Sisi’s failure to offer them a prospect of a better life has over the last year sparked spontaneous protests and widespread grumbling. His iron grip bolstered by draconic laws and brutal repression have so far protected him from more organized dissent. Yet, three years into Mr. Al-Sisi’s rule, the notion of protest is again on people’s minds.

“I am so pessimistic about the future for my kids. I would support a strike of some sort or a large- scale disobedience because this is unsustainable,” said Sayed Shaaban, as he filled up the gas tank of his 12-seat Suzuki microbus for double the price he used to pay. Dozens of drivers had blocked Cairo’s October 6 Bridge a day earlier to protest the fuel price hikes.

Egyptian advances in the African and World Cup tournaments would allow Mr. Al-Sisi to associate himself with their success in the hope that it would help him polish his tarnished image. The risk is that discontent spontaneously boils over at any one of the matches. If so, Mr. Al-Sisi’s effort would have seriously backfired.

Jalil Buriyev left Uzbekistan for Russia two decades ago, when he was just 18. He started out working as a lumberjack in Abakan, the capital of Russia’s Republic of Khakassia, and made what was then considered good money. After four years, he returned home and married Sanobar, a woman from his village in southeastern Uzbekistan’s Kashkadarya Province.

Despite tying the knot, Jalil continued to spend most of his time in Abakan, where 10 years later he married a local ethnic Khakas woman called Ilona. Sanobar, with whom he had two daughters, reluctantly gave her blessing.

“What was I supposed to do? My husband has been working there for 20 years and comes home every two years. I never imagined he would betray me in this way. I went to the imam for advice. He told me that if a man is able to provide for two families, then he is free to go ahead and marry,” Sanobar told EurasiaNet.org.

Earlier this year, Jalil returned to his home village with his Khakas wife and their six-year-old daughter in tow.

“I decided to introduce Ilona to my parents and, of course, to Sanobar. My wives have found common ground, and Sanobar has taken in my Russian daughter like her own,” he told EurasiaNet.org.

Ilona said she was afraid to visit Uzbekistan at first, but agreed after much persuasion from her in-laws.

“The excitement and fear passed when I met Sanobar and my husband’s parents. Before getting married, I adopted Islam and began to learn Uzbek. Jalil is a very caring husband. He does not drink and he makes good money. We have a big house in Abakan and I am happy,” she told EurasiaNet.org.

Unlike Jalil, Nodir Zafarov is not so eager to speak openly about his second family in Kazakhstan. The 31-year old is from Namangan, a conservative Ferghana Valley city. He is married to a fellow Namangani and has a son.

Eight years ago, he opened an Uzbek bakery in Almaty, Kazakhstan. To ensure his business prospered, he insisted on keeping close tabs on the bakery and began returning home more seldom.

“One time in Almaty I met Sabina, who ran a hairdressing salon next to our bakery. She is a Uyghur. First we made friends, and eventually we decided to get married through the Islamic [marriage] rite of nikah,” Zafarov told EurasiaNet.org.

But as Zafarov explained, if his first wife finds out, he will be forced to return home without delay, so he is keeping the nuptials secret for now.

In contrast to those two men, Aziz Nurullayev, 34, a taxi driver in Moscow, is eager to forget about his wife and daughter in Uzbekistan. He has married a Russian woman with whom he has two sons, and has not been back to Uzbekistan for five years. Nurullayev declined to explain how this situation has come about, but said that he is determined to remain in Russia for good.

Similar examples of polygamy among migrant laborers can be found in almost every town and village in Uzbekistan. All the same, the issue has almost never been discussed in local media.

That changed a few weeks ago after President Shavkat Mirziyoyev stated publicly that new legislation was needed to combat polygamy more robustly. His main target appears to be the clerics that he said propagate the practice. “To stop this lawlessness we are drawing up a draft bill,” Mirziyoyev said on June 19. “Every mullah that performs the nikah rites without a witness or marriage registration documents will be punished.”

Despite the taboo nature of the issue, local authorities are regularly confronted by women demanding that the government somehow force their husbands to return home, or at the very least provide financial assistance. Life as a solitary mother is miserable and hard in Uzbekistan.

“Of course, local district administrations and women’s committees try in their own way to help these women. Often the wives of migrants are forced to come to terms with the situation, but only on condition that the husbands pay some kind of child support,” Muhabbat Nusratova, a deputy with a local district council in Kashkadarya Province, told EurasiaNet.org.

Sergei Abashin, a St. Petersburg-based expert on Central Asia, said that it is virtually impossible to determine the scale of polygamy among Uzbek migrants.

“This is inevitable. People are separated from their families for entire months and years. Some of them find temporary partners in Russia who then turn into permanent partners. As far as statistics go, if such cases occur among, let’s say, even 0.1 percent of those who migrate, you are still talking about 1,500 to 2,000 people. And over a number of years, the total number could have grown to tens of thousands of cases,” Abashin said.

As Mirziyoyev argued, if polygamy is so ubiquitous in Uzbekistan, it is religious figures at the local level that may bear some responsibility.

An imam in Kashkadarya Province, Bobokhon Rahimov, told EurasiaNet.org that the practice typically gets his blessing.

“If a man is able to provide for both families, then there is nothing reprehensible about it. These are also traditions of Islam. But if a man who is living abroad has already broken off with his first wife back in his homeland, he should declare talaq [a Sunni Muslim marriage annulment rite]. Or the wife can apply three times for the husband to declare talaq. If this does not happen, then the woman has the right to remarry,” Rahimov told EurasiaNet.org.

If clerics take a liberal view on polygamy, authorities are on paper less forgiving. Uzbek law dictates that polygamy or cohabitation with two or more women is punishable by a stiff fine or up to three years in jail.

Only two offenders have ever faced penalties, however.

In 2012, Yakub Normurodov, the head of a local education department in Surkhandarya Province, was convicted for polygamy. And two years earlier, the head of police in the city of Gulistan was dismissed over the same offense.

Sahiba Hayitova, a blogger and journalist living in Moscow, told EurasiaNet.org that many migrants usually exploit Islamic customs to satisfy primal urges. And sometimes their goals are far more pragmatic – marriage with a Russian citizen greatly simplifies the process of securing the documentation needed to obtain permits for permanent residence.

“I am certain that most Uzbek women would never give their consent for their husbands to begin a new family in Russia. But when they face such problems, they are forced either to support themselves and their children independently, or to turn to their parents for help,” Hayitova said.

In an effort to enhance South-South cooperation, Morocco, a rising star in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Mekong River Commission (MRC) to cooperate in the areas of sustainable water-resource development and management.

“This partnership will foster exchanges and cooperation in water-resource development and management through the sharing of available technical expertise and lessons learned by both parties. Some of the common interests of both parties range from energy to agriculture and food security to water quality,” the MRC said in a press release.

The MoU, the first of its kind, was signed by Moroccan Ambassador to Thailand Abdelilah El Housni and MRC chief executive officer Pham Tuan Phan in the Laotian capital Vientiane on June 29.

Ambassador El Housni is a well-respected Moroccan diplomat based in Bangkok and is also the dean of African diplomats in Thailand.

Both Morocco and the MRC have a common interest in the areas of water-resource development and management.

“The collaboration aims to ultimately promote and enhance public safety and community welfare by fostering research; promote, encourage, and advance safer, more economical, efficient, and environmentally sound system for water-resource development and management,” the MRC said.

With this agreement, surprisingly, Morocco has become the first Arab or African partner of the MRC. Myanmar and China are the MRC’s existing dialogue partners.

The MRC, an inter-governmental organization, was established in 1995 by Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos with the aim of jointly managing the shared water resources and the sustainable development of the mighty Mekong River.

Many people may be wondering why a country from North Africa is interested in Southeast Asia.

Thanks to the great vision of Moroccan King Mohammed VI of making his country a major influence on the comity of nations, Morocco has been recently diversifying its cooperation with all regions and at all levels to attain sustainable, active and solidarity-based development.

In a major foreign policy shift, Morocco re-joined the African Union (AU) earlier this year to foster close partnerships with African countries. Morocco left the AU in 1984 over the issue of Western Sahara after the AU opened its doors to a rebel government led by the Polisario Front under the name of the SADR (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic).

It was the long-time wish of King Mohammed VI to return to the AU.

“Africa is my home, and I am coming back home,” Morocco’s popular king said while addressing African leaders at the time of readmission.

Morocco also received the green light recently to join the Western African regional group the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), even though Morocco is situated in North Africa.

Morocco is not focusing only on Africa or the Middle East, it is increasingly looking toward the East, especially Southeast Asia.

“Morocco is keen to pursue closer relations with ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations],” Morocco’s Ambassador to Indonesia and ASEAN Ouadia Benabdellah said while submitting his letter of credentials to ASEAN Secretary-General Le Luong Minh in Jakarta last month.

Last year, Morocco signed ASEAN’s important Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) agreement. Morocco and Egypt are the only two countries from Africa to have signed the TAC.

With a GDP of US$105 billion and a population of 35 million, Morocco is the most attractive countries in the MENA region for foreign investors.

“It’s a gateway to both Europe and Africa. We welcome investors from all over the world,” Ambassador Benabdellah said recently.

Thanks to its geographical proximity, Morocco signed an advanced status agreement with the European Union in 2008 and a Free Trade Agreement with the United States in 2006.

By Nick Cunningham

The rally in oil prices over the past two weeks came to a halt on Wednesday on news that OPEC is actually exporting more oil than previously thought.

A month ago, oil prices appeared to be higher than they should have been, with weak demand, elevated inventories, and a recognition that the nine-month OPEC extension would be inadequate to balance the market. Oil sold off and dropped to the mid-$40s and below. Oil traders then bought on the dip, and bid prices back up over the past two weeks. Now, prices again look like they could be reaching an upper limit.

“The air is getting thin for oil prices. The price increase just ran out of steam, which is not very surprising, given the newsflow of rising OPEC supplies,” Carsten Fritsch, senior commodity analyst at Commerzbank, told Reuters.

According to Reuters data, OPEC exports jumped again in June, the second consecutive month of rising exports. Everyone tends to pay attention to the production data, but the volume of exports is arguably much more important. Reuters says that OPEC’s oil exports rose to 25.92 million barrels per day (mb/d) in June, an increase of 450,000 bpd from May.

More importantly, OPEC’s exports are actually 1.9 mb/d higher today than they were a year ago, despite the highly-touted compliance rate with the collective production cuts. Reuters columnist Clyde Russell calls OPEC’s efforts to balance the oil market “an exercise in self-deception.” It appears that OPEC is exporting just as much oil as it was before the November deal was announced, according to a Reuters analysis of oil tanker data. The UAE, for example, exported 2.8 mb/d in the first six months of 2017, higher than the 2.52 mb/d the country averaged in the same period a year earlier. Iran too is exporting more than last year.

Then, of course, there are the countries exempted from the deal – Libya and Nigeria – where exports are rising quickly. Libya’s exports only averaged 243,000 bpd in the first half of 2016, a figure that doubled to 553,000 bpd this year. Libya’s production recently topped 1 mb/d, so its exports are surely set to rise further.

Ultimately, this means that OPEC’s oil exports are not all that different from last year’s figures even though it has claimed success with the collective cuts.

That raises the question about whether or not OPEC should make deeper cuts, an approach that a growing number of analysts say is needed to balance the market.

And as Bloomberg recently noted, another cut would be consistent with OPEC’s own history. In the past, OPEC conducted multiple cuts over a short period of time, tweaking their output levels in order to achieve a targeted outcome. “In the past if it didn’t work, OPEC would adjust lower,” Mike Wittner, head of oil market research at Societe Generale SA, told Bloomberg. “It’s a process. That’s what supply management means.” It would be an “outlier” if this time they cut only once.

However, the one major reason why a follow-up cut would be more difficult is the presence of rapid-response U.S. shale. Shale drillers have already brought back a lot of production since last year, so deeper cuts could simply open up more room for them. While some analysts are pointing to the possibility of shale production starting to slow, that would support the notion that the industry responds very quickly to changing market dynamics. That responsiveness takes away some leverage from OPEC and undercuts the rationale for steeper cuts.

Moreover, it would be very difficult to get all participants on board for deeper reductions. Russia, a crucial non-OPEC producer that has leant weight to the deal, has poured cold water on speculation about the possibility of deeper cuts. Four Russian officials said they would oppose any proposal for more aggressive action.

The officials even argued that another cut so quickly after the group agreed to a nine-month extension could backfire. The hasty move would be viewed by the market as a panicked decision, a recognition that what they have been doing is wholly inadequate to balance the market. Oil traders might interpret an attempt to lower output as very bearish rather than bullish.

As a result, we will probably be stuck with the current trajectory – muddling through for another year or so with modest drawdowns in inventories, and oil prices stuck in its current range between $40 and $60.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Dont-Hold-Your-Breath-For-Deeper-OPEC-Cuts.html

When news of the latest inter-Arab feud broke on 5 June 2017, it was not the first time that Qatar’s neighbours in the Gulf had lost patience with that stand-alone kingdom. Back in January 2014 underlying tensions, brewing for years, suddenly surfaced, and Gulf states tried to induce Qatar to sign an agreement undertaking not to support extremist groups, not to interfere in the affairs of other Gulf states, and to cooperate on regional issues.

When Qatar flatly refused to comply, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain broke diplomatic relations with their recalcitrant neighbour and in March 2014 withdrew their ambassadors. Qatar’s 33-year-old Emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, had been in power for less than a year, and the pressure proved too great. In April, at a meeting in Saudi Arabia, the Qataris signed the Riyadh Agreement whose terms, though never made public, were believed to be virtually the same as those they had refused to sign a few weeks before.

Whatever the Riyadh Agreement exactly specifies, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain clearly took away a very different view of what had been agreed than the Qataris. They expected Qatar to curtail its support for extreme Islamism, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. They believed that Qatar had agreed to remove, or at least reduce, the appearance of Islamists on Al Jazeera and other Qatari media, and especially to eliminate or soften the constant Muslim Brotherhood-based criticism of Egypt’s government and its president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. They also expected Qatar to expel, or at least silence, the provocative Islamist figures that dominated its media platforms, including Muslim Brotherhood preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Palestinian Arab nationalist firebrand Azmi Bisha.

With the document signed, on 17 April 2014 Gulf officials declared the end of what they described as a mere misunderstanding among “brothers of the same family”.

However the Gulf nations, and indeed Egypt, were soon to find that Qatar had no intention of meeting their expectations and simply continued its support of Islamist extremists intent on undermining the stability of the region. Finally, their patience exhausted, the Gulf states and Egypt, backed by Jordan, Yemen and at least 8 other Arab states, took drastic action. The main charge levelled at Qatar in the June 2017 débacle was that it had failed to fulfil the undertakings it entered into in 2014.

“We want to see Qatar implement the promises it made a few years back with regard to its support of extremist groups, to its hostile media and interference in affairs of other countries,” Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, told reporters in Paris, adding that by maintaining its support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar was undermining the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Egypt. “Qatar has to stop these policies so that it can contribute to stability in the Middle East.”

Hamas said it was “shocked” by Saudi Arabia’s demand that Qatar cease supporting the group. Qatar, unlike the US, the EU and a clutch of other nations, refuses to designate Hamas a terrorist organization, but refers to it as a “legitimate resistance movement.”

When, on the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Hamas refused to support Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and his Shi’ite allies, Iran and Hezbollah, its officials left their Damascus headquarters and Qatar provided a new base. Khaled Mashal, Hamas leader as he then was, made his home there, as did other Hamas officials. So when in May 2017 Hamas unveiled its new policy document to the world – the document that reiterates its aim of destroying Israel, while also being prepared to envisage a sovereign Palestine temporarily established within pre-Six Day War boundaries – the venue it chose was not Gaza City, but the ballroom of the Sheraton hotel in Doha, Qatar’s capital.

Over the past few years Qatar’s ruling Al Thani regime has become a major funding source for Hamas’s fiefdom in the Gaza Strip. It has provided millions of dollars in aid and bankrolled everything from electricity to public-sector salaries. In January 2016 Qatar handed over some 1,060 housing units to Gazan families who had lost their homes during recent wars. These homes marked the completion of the first of three phases of a multi-million dollar redevelopment effort which Qatar pledged to fund in 2012. In addition to infrastructure facilities, roads and green spaces, it includes two schools, a health centre, a commercial centre, a mosque and a six-floor hospital. Just before the crisis, Doha had agreed to send yet another $100 million to Gaza.

Whatever its rationale, Israel seems to raise no public objection to Qatar pouring millions of dollars into Gaza. Back in June 2015, despite the fact that Qatar does not recognize Israel, and the two countries have no diplomatic relations, Mohammad al-Emadi, a Qatari official, travelled between Israel and Gaza to discuss reconstruction projects in the Strip.

“Life is full of contradictions and strange things,” was how Yossi Kuperwasser, former head of research for Israel’s military intelligence, described Israel’s apparent acquiescence to Qatar channelling its aid to Gaza through Hamas. Odd it certainly is. For while Israel is doubtless content on humanitarian grounds to see the funding of infrastructure improvements in Gaza, it is also intent on reducing the power and influence of Hamas. The former consideration clearly outweighs the latter.

The main Gazan newspaper, Filisteen, continually asserts that the PA is in cahoots with Israel to weaken the Hamas regime. On 20 June, citing the cutting of Gaza’s electricity supplies and the ending of payments to ex-prisoners, it claimed that PA President Mahmoud Abbas had called for the Arab coalition currently operating in Yemen against the Houthis to send some of its units to “liberate” the Gaza Strip from its terrorist rulers. “Simply outrageous,” thundered Mamduh al-Ajrami, former PA minister of prisoner affairs, in the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi.

What Hamas most fears is that Abbas is allying the PA with what it calls the “Riyadh summit bloc”, and the subsequent attack on Qatar. Qatar’s support for Hamas features so high on the list of policies the Arab states find unacceptable, that the outcome of the Qatar crisis has become of existential importance to Hamas.

President Xi Jingping visited Hong Kong to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Hong Kong’s reunification with the Chinese mainland as a Special Administrative Region (SAR). In 1997 after the British withdrew from Hong Kong, the one country, two systems-model was unheard of, but now, it has become a success.

The one country, two systems-model was first formulated by Chairman Mao in the 1960’s-1970’s when he considered the issue of Taiwan because there were two systems in Taiwan and the mainland. If China reunited with Taiwan, there must have been a mechanism, and Chairman Mao did compromise that each side can keep their own system. In the 1980’s, Deng Xiaoping met with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and put forward the idea of one country, two systems to solve the problem of Hong Kong.

How Has the One Country, Two Systems-Model Made Hong Kong Competitive?

Over the past twenty years, the one country, two systems-model has worked very well for the economy and autonomy of Hong Kong. Also, Hong Kong will continue to be one of the premier business capitals of the world. Some of the factors that have led to Hong Kong’s economic success include, for example, rising GDP levels; in fact, over the past two decades, Hong Kong’s economy grew by 6 percent.

In addition, according to the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, Hong Kong is the world’s freest economy and it is the “world’s most services-oriented economy, with services sectors accounting for more than 90% of GDP.”i In terms of Foreign Direct Investment, Hong Kong is the second largest recipient of FDI in Asia, and the continent’s “third largest source of FDI, after Japan and the Chinese mainland.”ii

Hong Kong has been a great success story for not only making itself competitive globally, but making Asia a more competitive region in the world. For the Chinese mainland, it serves as an entrepôt for foreign investment, trade, business, and external investment. What the One Country, Two Systems concept has done so well over the years has been to enable Hong Kong as a stable, prosperous country that can conduct business freely and compete on the international stage as one of the world’s strongest economies. For the people of Hong Kong, there are plenty of opportunities arising from development reform and opening-up to China. China is now an $11 trillion economy with a need for a lot of services, and Hong Kong is one of the leading service economies in the world.iii This provides Hong Kong with a lot of specific benefits in the creation of jobs, higher incomes for workers, and more business for corporations.

When the concept of one country, two systems was proposed, there was a fair degree of skepticism of whether it will work. As mentioned before, if you look at the indicators, especially economically, the concept has worked for Hong Kong, but of course, it has many challenges. Economically, even though Hong Kong has maintained a prosperous reputation as an economic partner, many experts are concerned about how long Hong Kong can continue to maintain a high degree of competitiveness among the world’s strongest economies like the People’s Republic of China, the United States, India, and Japan.

In addition, since Hong Kong is one of the freest economies in the world, it offers a level playing field for global corporations and state-owned enterprises. Politically, there are still some concerns about maintaining political rights, protecting civil liberties, and the transition of Hong Kong into a more democratic system. If you look at Hong Kong objectively, it has strong institutions that are aligned with the rule of law, Hong Kong also has an independent judiciary system, and there is a high degree of transparency in civil society for the people of this extravagant entrepôt.

Opportunities for Hong Kong in the One Belt, One Road Initiative

One of the broad goals for the Chinese mainland has come through President Xi’s One Belt, One Road initiative (OBOR). Hong Kong is very encouraged and excited about being a part of this international project. In addition, Hong Kong has also joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as an active member since it is one of the premier financial centers of the world.

Hong Kong can play a role in funding for infrastructure projects, and its airport authority, as well as its railroad sectors, are some of the best operators for contributing to the demand of capital for financing infrastructure construction in Belt-Road countries. Hong Kong will also be able to facilitate the financing for the OBOR projects and allow companies to underwrite the risks of providing consultants with reliable project management and tax advice.

Not only can the OBOR initiative play a role in Hong Kong’s services, but it can also play a role for its trade and commercial sectors. In addition, Hong Kong is one of the busiest ports in the world when it comes to trade. Many countries have used Hong Kong as a platform to buy and sell products that will open a lot of room for the harmonization of trade policies and opportunities for Hong Kong to conclude more free trade agreements with the Belt-Road countries.

Hong Kong is also encouraging a lot of people-to-people exchanges and providing a lot of funding for younger students to do educational and cultural exchanges. The One Belt, One Road initiative (OBOR) can be a strong engine for the future of Hong Kong as well as for the one country, two systems-model.

Takeaways from Hong Kong’s Current Success

The relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong has had its tests, but the relationship overall has been very stable. Let’s not forget that Hong Kong was a region under British rule for 155 years from 1842-1997, and the handover of Hong Kong to China was a very significant moment in history. The handover of Hong Kong was also significant in the way that it was done because the one country, two systems was a very innovative proposal that overcame the challenges of British colonization and it allowed for the people of Hong Kong to establish closer ties with its mainland relatives.

Twenty years later, Hong Kong has been more advanced in the rule of law (despite pro-independence movements from the opposition), cracking down on corruption, and maintaining accountability, so this proves to be a very good track-record.

The mainland has done everything it could to help Hong Kong in many ways to make sure that the transition from a British colony to a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China was smooth, and both sides want to see the one country, two systems-model succeed because this is a creative way to unite Hong Kong with the mainland and provide inspirations for future social experiments within China. Beijing has tried in every way to make sure that Hong Kong’s society and economy function well, and this will continue going forward.

*Vincent Lofaso, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

By Ronald J. Granieri*

(FPRI) –This weekend, the world’s most powerful leaders are gathering in Hamburg for the G-20 summit. The main event for many observers will be the first (or at least the first publicly confirmed) face-to-face meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also in the spotlight, however, will be the event’s nominal host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel. After a year in which she was buffeted by criticism for her handling of Germany’s immigration policy and its handling of the Greek debt crisis in the EU, Merkel’s political fortunes have been on the upswing over the last three months. As she leads her Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (collectively, the CDU/CSU) into national elections in September, Merkel appears destined for re-election. At the same time, she has become a lightning rod in the current storm over the Atlantic, thrust into the role of the leader of the opposition to the Trump administration’s agenda.

President Trump appears to have a significant problem with the Germans, and with Merkel in particular. His off the cuff comment during his trip to Europe in May that the Germans were “Bad… very bad” stood out—and sent Germans scurrying to their dictionaries to decide how to translate the president’s sentiment. Did he mean böse (which can translate as evil?) or schlecht (a more generic word for “bad”)? Was he referring to particular policies, or to the larger German character? Whatever the etymological foundation, it was notable that President Trump, who went out of his way to avoid criticizing any of his other hosts on his international trip, used such unusually negative terms to speak of one his country’s staunchest allies, including multiple references to the German failure to meet NATO’s target of spending two percent of GDP on defense.

Although his indictment of German trade policy and defense spending is consistent with criticisms leveled by others, Trump’s reaction to Merkel reflects some characteristic blind spots regarding Germany and its role in the world. That Merkel’s administration endorsed NATO’s 2014 plan to raise defense spending, and has affirmed Germany’s commitment to reach the goal in the face of domestic opposition, has received no mention in the president’s speeches. Nor has Germany’s tenacious diplomacy on the ongoing Ukraine crisis. For President Trump, Germany and Merkel have become the symbol for all he dislikes about Europe, a sentiment shared by many of his closest supporters.

Merkel has responded to the criticism from Washington with criticism of her own. In a campaign speech to CSU members after the G-7 meeting, she warned that Europeans could no longer automatically rely on the United States or Great Britain, and should work more closely together to advance their interests. As a further symbolic gesture, the CDU/CSU’s election platform has changed the wording of the relationship with the United States, no longer referring to Washington as Germany’s “friend” in favor of the more impersonal choice of “partner.”

It remains to be seen whether the president will use this visit to Europe to modify the first impression he made in May. Donald Trump is not alone in his criticism of Merkel, however, nor does he show any signs of relenting. The popularity Merkel has earned as Time Magazine’s 2015 Person of the Year—an article in which she was given the grandiose title, “Chancellor of the Free World” (a moniker she has never sought and which sits uneasily upon those shoulders that George W. Bush famously tried to rub) have made her a target for many opponents. The nature of those criticisms tells us a great deal about the current state of the transatlantic alliance, and provide reason to fear for the future of the West.

Anglo-American conservatives have never really known what to do with Angela Merkel. For all the comparisons between her and Margaret Thatcher as successful leaders of European conservative parties, Merkel does not inspire the same level of devotion from conservatives outside of Germany. This is in part due to the significant differences between the laissez-faire conservatism of Thatcher’s Tories and that more statist conservatism of Merkel’s Christian Democrats. With its complex inheritance of both capitalism and Catholic social teaching, Christian Democracy has always been more comfortable with public intervention in the economy, as indicated by the CDU/CSU’s embrace of the complicated (even oxymoronic) concept of the Social Market Economy. For many Anglo-American conservatives, who are classical liberals at heart, the very word “social” is suspect, and they have had problems with Continental Christian Democrats for years. For too many conservatives, whose default setting is Euroskepticism, continental Europe is a hotbed of socialism, and that’s that.

As the head of a coalition government that includes the Social Democrats (SPD) for most of her time in office, Merkel has raised conservative ire further, compromising with the SPD on spending issues that have made even the more capitalist-friendly elements of her party blanch. Merkel’s personal history as a native of the former communist German Democratic Republic also causes some to wonder whether she might have some basic hostility to capitalism. At the same time, however, “green eyeshade conservatives” should be impressed by a chancellor who has managed to present balanced budgets over the past five years, with mounting surpluses over the last three. One looks in vain for leaders of any democratically elected party—conservative, liberal, or whatever—who can currently make such a claim.

Conservative critiques of Merkel have not insulated her against criticism from the other flank. The Left is not fond of her either—if only because she has stolen much of their thunder, on issues ranging from renewable energy to migration. The SPD has been continually frustrated in its efforts to escape its position as the junior member of a Grand Coalition with the CDU/CSU. After struggling to gain electoral traction for the better part of the past year, the SPD thought it had hit the jackpot by electing a new party leader and chancellor candidate, Martin Schulz. The former president of the European parliament had both international stature and a working-class background, and he immediately scored points by promising a return to traditional SPD positions on expanding the welfare state. Enthusiasm for Schulz has faded of late, however, as the CDU has scored major victories in state elections, and Merkel is riding high again in national polls.

Leftist criticism of Merkel is not limited to her domestic rivals, however. Merkel has also absorbed heavy criticism from the global Left for her European policy. She is the champion of austerity, and has been a tenacious defender of Germany economic policy—whether on demanding that Greece accept harsh debt terms or on claiming that Germany’s trade surplus is good for the world economy. This led even such a relentlessly anti-Trump outlet as Slate to publish a piece claiming the president “has a point” with his criticism of the Germans. (Though, amusingly, the headline of the piece was altered sometime after initial publication to avoid appearing too positively disposed toward Donald Trump.)

Beyond establishment criticism from the Left and Right, populists in particular loathe Merkel for her domestic moderation, her European advocacy, and especially for her commitment to immigration reform. Facing a humanitarian crisis in the late summer of 2015, Merkel famously offered an open invitation for migrants to come to Germany. Hundreds of thousands ultimately came. International praise for this decision (which played a major role in Time’s decision to make her Person of the Year for 2015) quickly ebbed after a series of sex crimes on New Year’s Eve 2015 and after subsequent news stories exposed significant problems in the assimilation of so many newcomers. Merkel faced criticism not only from the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland but also within her own party (especially the CSU). In response, she advocated a series of legal reforms to encourage the repatriation of criminal migrants, and also pursued an international agreement with Turkey to help block the migrant flow.

For populists across Europe, however, it is her first decision, and not the subsequent adjustments, that show Merkel’s true colors. Marine Le Pen, smarting at an interviewer’s question as to why the other leaders of Europe declined to meet with her during her presidential campaign because she was “toxic,” launched a rant against Merkel for being toxic herself for her policies. Le Pen’s indictment was not quite coherent, but covered all the bases of the populist distaste: Merkel was responsible for austerity with her insistence on maintaining the euro, Merkel was also responsible for migrant chaos for her decision to allow so many migrants into Germany. For populists, she is both hard-hearted and soft-headed, and equally vilified for both sins.

Loathing for Merkel’s policies and frustration at her success and good press has also led to the usual clichés of warning about Nazi and German dominance of Europe. This extends beyond placards in Greek protests to also include semi-learned pseudonymous articles in Trumpist outlets such as Zero Hedge and  American Greatness.

The connection between such populist conservatives and anti-Merkelism is made through British Euroskeptics, both within and outside of the Tory party, who have been warning of the EU as a German plot with nefarious background since the Thatcher Era, and whose comments are still spiced with references to Baroness Thatcher’s tart comments about congenital German flaws. In the current tensions between Merkel and Trump, some conservatives have even hinted darkly at Germany’s plans to strike a deal with Russia—warnings that require one to ignore both President Trump’s own warm words for Moscow and Chancellor Merkel’s central role in supporting sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine.

Just this week, Victor David Hanson in National Review repeated many of these tropes, accusing Merkel of being motivated by a “strange driving force” to open the doors to immigrants in pursuit of an anti-American, anti-Christian agenda. Hanson’s comment that Merkel criticized the Trump administration in a “Munich beer hall” (referring to her May speech to the CSU) drips with historical innuendo—and ignores that her speech was part of a democratic election campaign, held in a tent erected for the purpose.

There may indeed be a pathology at work in these discussions of Germany, but considering the vitriol of the attacks on someone as moderate and Western as Merkel, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the pathology lies not in some deep subconscious German lust for another Reich as in the subconscious of her critics. An unwillingness to grant the humanitarian impulses behind Merkel’s 2015 decision to welcome immigrants is perhaps understandable, if historically myopic; an inability to see the ways that Merkel has presided over policy changes to limit the flow of refugees since then (both in German laws and in her pursuit of a deal with Turkey) is rather less so. They reflect a willingness to believe anything negative about Germany, even if that leads to claiming to see a brown shirt peeking out from the pantsuit and jackboots where there are only sensible shoes.

The charge that Merkel is the face of German dominance also ignores the degree to which her criticism of American policy is widely shared across Europe. Longtime analyst of European politics Judy Dempsey, for example, sees Merkel as the rallying figure for the defense of transatlantic values—free trade, democracy, individual rights, as well as resistance to Russian efforts to re-establish dominance in Eastern Europe—that the current administration has chosen to abandon. Merkel herself may be uncomfortable with loose talk about being “leader of the free world,” but she has been able to rally Europe to her positions. Even if the details of policy can be debated, her willingness to stand up for values that have guided the West through the Cold War deserve praise rather than dark innuendo.

Professional “moderates” like to say that if you are being attacked from both the Right and the Left, you must be doing something good. This is sometimes true, but it is by no means universal. Sometimes being attacked from all sides might be proof that you are dead wrong. In Merkel’s case, it is also important to see that she is far from perfect. Her handling of the Greek budget situation was, at times, inflexible, and her swift about faces on energy and immigration each required her to readjust after initially miscalculating the downsides. Right now, she has shocked many in Germany by softening her opposition to marriage equality, a decision that is hailed in some quarters as brave leadership and canny electoral politics, but criticized in other quarters as proof that she doesn’t have any firm principles at all. Both may be true to a certain degree. It is certainly worth debating whether her form of leadership, which relies on quiet long-term management and tactical finesse rather than dramatic statements and bold initiatives, is at least partially responsible for allowing certain issues to go unresolved for too long.

At the same time, the different nature of the criticism from the Right and Left indicates a disturbing trend in transatlantic politics. Criticisms of Merkel from the Left tend to follow traditional political grooves—she is accused of being a conservative at heart, seizing opportunities to triangulate and co-opt leftist positions for electoral advantage to keep her party and its agenda in power. That is certainly quite frustrating for the opposition parties, and for her social democratic partners, but it is also very much in a long tradition. Social Democratic Chancellors Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schröder absorbed similar attacks by the CDU/CSU for being equally good at co-opting center-right positions.

The criticism coming from the Right is another issue. Some of it comes from disgruntled elements within the CDU/CSU, who worry that too much tactical adoption of center-left positions undermines the Union’s traditional principles. That is the mirror image of the main criticism from the Left, and experience indicates that sooner or later every political party or movement will pull back from too much centrism. Merkel’s success in undermining critics within the CDU leadership has preserved her position, and her current high poll numbers mean she is secure through this election campaign. It does not take too much imagination, however, to see that her successors will have to deal with a significant backlash.

The criticism from the right-wing outside the CDU/CSU, however, is another matter. When devotees of the Alternative für Deutschland attack her for willfully seeking to destroy German culture with her immigration policies, they come quite close to ominous traditions of accusing democratically elected leaders of Volksverrat, or treason against the people. When those themes are further taken up by Euroskeptics outside of Germany, who mix it with the apparently contradictory argument that she is using the EU as a vehicle for a German plan for world domination, they become even more corrosive to Western unity.

In the era of Brexit, all of the structures of the West have been called into question. If the EU is no longer a one-way street toward “Ever closer union,” then what should the relationship among European states look like? NATO may no longer be “obsolete” in the eyes of President Trump, but is it still an essential political organization, an alliance of democracies, or an arrangement of convenience among states who have to be reminded to pay their dues? If, as suggested in a recent op-ed by National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster and White House Adviser Gary Cohn, the United States no longer believes in an international community of common values, but in an arena of competition where each member pursues its own interests, what will become of notions of Western values, or of the Atlantic Alliance as an organization to protect them? President Trump used his speech in Warsaw on Thursday to ask whether the West has “the will to survive.” But does he have a vision of the West that will embrace the traditional values of free trade, solidarity, and mutual respect? Will the other leaders of the West be able to offer suggestions of their own to build a more coherent relationship for the future?

Answers to any of the questions will depend upon the commitment of the leaders of the West to work together. It does not require them to agree on all things at all times, but it does require a sense of mutual respect, and a common belief that any policy differences do not overshadow their common values. Angela Merkel has made a career of articulating policies based on those common values, and she will be a central figure in the debates to come. She deserves better than being accused of secret plots for world domination.

Nevertheless, Angela Merkel will not stay in office forever, no matter how well she does in this fall’s elections. Her long run in the chancellorship is impressive, but not unprecedented. Two of her CDU predecessors, Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl, won four consecutive elections as well. Each in his own way accomplished great things. Nevertheless, neither could avoid the inevitable erosion of their authority, the missteps that come after too many years in power, and the exhaustion of an electorate that eventually wanted something new. One can hope that, unlike them, Merkel will have a keener sense of the right time and place to depart, and better luck in choosing a successor. That all remains to be seen.

Right now, there is no one on the horizon, within Germany or elsewhere, who possesses her combination of skill, patience, and principle. When one considers not only the Trump Administration’s current attitude toward the Atlantic Alliance but also the current weakness of Europe’s other two traditional leaders, Britain and France, it is even more apparent that she will leave a significant gap in German, European, and transatlantic politics when she leaves. The consequences will be felt across the West. The search for Merkel’s replacement will likely lead to a difficult transitional period, at a time when the global challenges facing the West are only likely to grow. That is something that should indeed scare us all.

About the author:
*Ron Granieri is the Executive Director of FPRI’s Center for the Study of America and the West, Editor of the Center’s E-publication The American Review of Books, Blogs, and Bull, and Host of Geopolitics with Granieri, a monthly series of events for FPRI Members.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ‘populism’ has become the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media’s ‘anti-populism’ campaign has been used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract, discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.

We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ‘populism’ and its multiple usages. Then we will turn to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements and parties dubbed ‘populist’ by the ideologues of ‘anti-populism’.

Conceptual Manipulation

In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ‘anti- populism’ it is necessary to examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.

Populism emerged during the 19th and 20th century as an ideology, movement and government in opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing monopolistic practices of the ‘robber barons’, the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.

In 19th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial elites.

In early 20th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.

In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas’s term (1951-1954) was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron’s first terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist capitalist development.

In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule from 1952-1964.

In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power. What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters (‘compradores’), bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted ‘third way’ politics by opposing imperialism on the right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.

Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism as ‘authoritarian’ and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as ‘a threat to Western Christian civilization’. Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as ‘fascists’ . . . even as they won numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.

The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today’s ‘anti-populists’ in the media are calling ‘populism’. In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class. Both ‘anti’s’ have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their ‘pro-capitalist’ privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as ‘pro-capitalist’, pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ‘anti-populist’.

‘Anti-populism’ is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-‘rebels’ (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers.

The economic origins of ‘anti-populism’ are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ‘populism’, the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.

Historic ‘anti-populism’ has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance growing fiscal deficits.

The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism

What the current anti-populists ideologues label ‘populism’ has little to do with the historical movements.

Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements and parties, denounced as ‘populist’ by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ‘populists’ attack the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ‘populists’ support imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.

Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning popular multi-class movements and regimes.

Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.

One has only to compare the currently demonized ‘populist’ Donald Trump with the truly populist US President Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution, and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media campaign has become.

The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a ‘populist’ when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.

The media’s ‘anti-populists’ ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ‘populists’. In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ‘populist’ for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists.

In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ‘anti-populism’ is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ‘Anti-populism’ has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters.

The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the ‘right’ with the ‘left’; to sidelight the latter and promote the former; to amalgamate rightwing ‘rallies’ with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular mass leaders.

Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the ‘anti- populist’ chorus. They have failed to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate populists in the name of ‘anti- fascism’. Leftwing writers, claiming to ‘combat the far-right enemies of the people’, overlook the fact that they are ‘fellow-travelling’ with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees-not immigrants –and concentrated immense wealth.

The bankruptcy of today’s ‘anti-populist’ left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets!

I have a unique confession to make: I like Gaza.

Yes, I like this far-away corner of Palestine, the narrow strip on the way to Egypt, in which two million human beings are crowded, and which is closer to hell than to heaven.

My heart goes out to them.

I have spent quite a lot of time in the Strip. Once or twice I stayed there with Rachel for a couple of days. I became friendly with some people whom I admired, people like Dr. Haidar Abd-al-Shafi, the leftist doctor who set up the Gazan health system, and Rashad al-Shawa, the former Mayor, an aristocrat from birth.

After the Oslo agreement, when Yasser Arafat came back to the country and set up his office in Gaza, I met him there many times. I brought to him groups of Israelis. On his first day there he sat me on the dais next to him. A photo of that occasion now looks like science fiction.

I even came to know the Hamas people. Before Oslo, when Yitzhak Rabin deported 415 Islamic activists from the country, I took part in setting up protest tents opposite his office. We lived there together, Jews, Christians and Muslims, and there Gush Shalom was born. After a year, when the deportees were allowed back, I was invited to a public reception for them in Gaza and found myself speaking to hundreds of bearded faces. Among them were some of today’s Hamas leaders.

Therefore I cannot treat the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as a faceless gray mass of people. I couldn’t stop thinking about them during last week’s terrible heat wave, about the people languishing in awful conditions, without electricity and air conditioning, without clean water, without medicines for the sick. I thought about those living in the houses severely damaged in the last wars and not repaired since. About the men and women, the old, the children, the toddlers, the babies.

My heart was bleeding, and was asking who was to blame.

Yes, who is to blame for this ongoing atrocity?

According to the Israelis, “the Palestinians themselves are to blame”. Fact: the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has decided to reduce the electricity supply to Gaza from three hours a day to two. (The electricity is supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.)

This seems to be true. The conflict between the Palestinian Authority, ruled by Fatah, and the Palestinian leadership in Gaza, ruled by Hamas, has come to an ugly climax.

The uninvolved bystander wonders: how can that be? After all, the entire Palestinian people are in existential danger. The Israeli government tyrannizes all Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. It keeps the Strip under a strangling blockade, on land, in the sea and in the air, and is setting up settlements all over the West Bank, to drive the population out.

In this desperate situation, how can the Palestinians fight each other, to the obvious delight of the occupation authorities?

That is terrible, but, sadly, not unique. On the contrary, in almost all liberation struggles, something similar has happened. During the Irish struggle for independence, the freedom fighters fought against each other and even shot each other. During our own struggle for statehood, the Haganah underground turned Irgun fighters over to the British police, who tortured them, and later shot up a ship bringing recruits and arms to the Irgun.

But these and many other examples do not justify what is happening now in Gaza. The struggle between Fatah and Hamas on the backs of two million people condemns these to inhuman living conditions.

As an old friend of the Palestinian people in their fight for liberation, I am deeply saddened.

But there are more partners to the atrocious blockade on Gaza.

Israel can blockade the Strip only on three sides. The fourth side is the Egyptian border. Egypt, which has in the past fought four major wars against Israel on behalf of the Palestinian brothers (in one of which I was wounded by an Egyptian machine-gunner) is now participating in the cruel blockade on the Strip.

What has happened? How did it happen?

Everyone who knows the Egyptian people knows that it is one of the most attractive peoples on earth. A very proud people. A people full of humor even in the most trying circumstances. Several times I have heard in Egypt phrases like: “We do not like the Palestinians very much, but they are our poor cousins, and we cannot abandon them under any circumstances!”

And here they are, not only abandoning, but cooperating with the cruel occupation.

All this why? Because the local rulers in Gaza are religious fanatics, just like the Muslim Brothers in Egypt who are the deadly enemies of today’s Pharaoh, General Abd-al-Fatah al-Sisi. Because of this enmity, millions in Gaza are punished.

Now rumor has it that Egypt would relent, if the Gazans accept an Egyptian stooge as their ruler.

The Israeli blockade of Gaza is completely dependent on the Egyptian blockade. Proud Egypt, which claims to be the leader the entire Arab World, has become the handmaiden of the Israeli occupation.

Who would have believed it?.

But the main responsibility for the atrocity in Gaza falls, of course, on us, on Israel.

We are the occupiers – a novel type of occupation by blockade.

The justification is clear: They want to destroy us. That is the official doctrine of Hamas. The mouse hurls terrible threats against the elephant.

True. But…

But like all religious people, they find a hundred different ways to cheat God and get around His prohibitions.

Hamas has declared that if Mahmood Abbas made peace with Israel, and if the Palestinian people confirmed the peace by plebiscite, Hamas would accept it.

Also, Islam allows for a Hudna (armistice) with infidels for any length of time – 10, 50, 100 years. After that, Allah is great.

In many hidden ways, Israel does cooperate with Hamas, especially against the even more extreme Islamists in the Strip. We could easily reach a modus vivendi all along the line.

So why must the people in Gaza suffer so grievously? No one really knows. Because of the mental laziness of the occupation. Because that’s what we are used to doing.

Here is a mental exercise: What if we did the very opposite?

What if we announced to the people in the Gaza Strip: the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is now paying for only two hours of electricity a day. But seeing your suffering, Israel has decided to provide you with electricity for 24 hours for free.

What would be the effect? How would Hamas react? How would it affect the level of violence and security costs?

For the long run, there are many Israeli and international plans. An artificial island in the Mediterranean opposite Gaza. An airport on the island. A deep-sea port. Peace in fact, even without declarations.

I believe that this is the wisest way to proceed. But wisdom has little chance.

In the meantime, the atrocity goes on. Two million human beings suffer inhuman treatment.

And the world? Alas. the world is busy. It has no eyes for Gaza. Better not to think about that awful place.