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

Warming Seas Could Lead To 70 Percent Increase In Hurricane-Related Financial Loss

0
0

If oceans warm at a rate predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation-sponsored group that assesses climate change research and issues periodic reports, expected financial losses caused by hurricanes could increase more than 70 percent by 2100, according to a study just published in the journal Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure.

The finding is based on the panel’s most severe potential climate change – and resulting increased sea surface temperature – scenario and is predicted at an 80 percent confidence level.

The results of the study, which focused on 13 coastal counties in South Carolina located within 50 miles of the coastline, including the most populous county, Charleston, are drawn from a model simulating hurricane size, intensity, track and landfall locations under two scenarios: if ocean temperatures remain unchanged from 2005 to 2100 and if they warm at a rate predicted by the IPCC’s worst-case scenario.

Under the 2005 climate scenario, the study estimates that the expected loss in the region due to a severe hurricane — one with a 2 percent chance of occurring in 50 years — would be $7 billion. Under the warming oceans scenario, the intensity and size of the hurricane at the same risk level is likely to be much greater, and the expected loss figure climbs to $12 billion.

The model drew on hurricane data for the last 150 years gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, then created simulated hurricanes under the two scenarios over 100,000 years and estimated the damage from every storm that made landfall in the study area.

Researchers then overlaid information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s HAZUS database, a zip-code-by-zip-code inventory of building types and occupancy. HAZUS sets out loss estimates according to wind speed for costs of repair, replacement, content and inventory, as well as costs resulting from loss of use, such rental income loss, business interruption and daily production output loss.

The researchers did not find that warming oceans will lead to more frequent hurricanes, only that warmer seas will lead to higher wind speeds and storms that are greater in size and therefore cover a larger area.

The losses are calculated based only on wind and wind-driven rain and do not include the large financial impacts of storm surge or flooding.

“The study shows that a significant increase in damage and loss is likely to occur in coastal Carolina, and by implication other coastal communities, as a result of climate change,” said one of the authors of the paper, David Rosowky, a civil engineer at the University of Vermont and the university’s provost.

“To be prepared, we need to build, design, zone, renovate and retrofit structures in vulnerable communities to accommodate that future,” he said.

The study was based on the IPPC’s Fifth Assessment, issued in 2013 and 2014. The worst-case ocean warming scenario the loss study is based on was not anticipated or included in the prior report, published in 2007.

“That suggests that these scenarios are evolving,” Rosowsky said. “What is today’s worst case scenario will likely become more probable in the IPCC’s future reports if little action is taken to slow the effects of climate change.”

The increasing severity of hurricanes will also affect hurricane modeling, Rosowsky said, and consequent predictions of damage and financial loss. In a postscript to the paper, which will also be published as a chapter in a forthcoming book, Rosowsky cites the three catastrophic storms of the current hurricane season, Harvey, Irma and Maria, as examples of events so severe they will shift the assumptions about the likelihood that such severe hurricanes will occur in the future.


Switzerland Supports Prolonging EU Border Checks

0
0

Citing increased threat of terror attacks, countries with external European Union borders are calling for the extension of temporary border controls – a change supported by Swiss justice minister Simonetta Sommaruga.

Sommaruga, who spoke just before the EU interior ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg on Friday, said that as some countries – including France and Germany – had already announced their intention to retain border checks past the initial deadline of November 2017, it was necessary to agree on common regulations “to which everyone must adhere”.

The justice minister acknowledged that while open borders and the free circulation of people throughout the EU’s Schengen Areaexternal link are important benefits, “we have a situation that has changed over the past few years, and it is therefore important that everyone plays by the same rules”.

Sommaruga noted that while Switzerland is a member of the Schengen Area, the Swiss situation is different from that of EU member states because it is not part of the EU customs union. As such, Switzerland can already instate border controls based on “suspicion”. Of course, she added, “in Switzerland, we continually analyse whether other measures are necessary and meaningful.”

She also stressed the importance of exchange of information between prosecuting authorities and intelligence services when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Not-so-temporary checks

In light of the great influx of migrants arriving in Europe during the summer and fall of 2015, some EU member states reintroduced border controls, which are normally done away with in the Schengen Area. The decision was notably justified by citing the security of exterior EU borders in Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

The European Commission originally announced in May that these temporary checks were to be terminated by November of this year, as migratory pressure had eased.

But Reuters reported on Friday that French Interior Minister Gérard Collomb said he wanted to extend his country’s border controls by six more months out of a concern for terrorism. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière was likewise quoted as saying that, while Germany is still committed to the freedom of movement, “at the moment, we cannot do without checks.”

The citation of a terrorist threat, rather than migration concerns, as the justification for the prolongation means that the countries have greater legal freedom to reintroduce the controls, without waiting for authorisation from the European Commission.

However, others expressed concern that the extended checks would snowball into indefinite controls, threatening free movement and the European economy.

“We share the concerns of some member states on the issue of security,” said EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, “but Schengen is alive, and must remain alive. If Schengen dies, Europe will die.”

Resettlement of migrants

On Friday, the interior ministers also discussed European Commission migration proposals to provide viable alternatives for vulnerable peoples in need of protection. One such proposal aimed at resettling refugees recognised by the UN Refugee Agencyexternal link, including those from North Africa. Switzerland already has a resettlement programme for migrants from neighbouring countries of Syria, and is ready to consider accommodating, within the existing legal framework, those stranded in Libya.

However, Sommaruga emphasised that resettlement should not be considered the only solution to migration in Europe, as many migrants from North Africa come in search of work, in addition to those classed as vulnerable. She added that while Europe should engage more actively in this region of the world, Libya’s migration problems could only be truly resolved by political stabilisation at home.

Devourer Of Planets? Researchers Dub Star ‘Kronos’

0
0

n mythology, the Titan Kronos devoured his children, including Poseidon (better known as the planet Neptune), Hades (Pluto) and three daughters.

So when a group of Princeton astronomers discovered twin stars, one of which showed signs of having ingested a dozen or more rocky planets, they named them after Kronos and his lesser-known brother Krios. Their official designations are HD 240430 and HD 240429, and they are both about 350 light years from Earth.

The keys to the discovery were first confirming that the widely separated pair are in fact a binary pair, and secondly observing Kronos’ strikingly unusual chemical abundance pattern, explained Semyeong Oh, a graduate student in astrophysical sciences who is lead author on a new paper describing Kronos and Krios. Oh works with David Spergel, the Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy on the Class of 1897 Foundation and director of the Flatiron Institute’s Center for Computational Astrophysics.

Other co-moving star pairs have had different chemistries, Oh explained, but none as dramatic as Kronos and Krios.

Most stars that are as metal-rich as Kronos “have all the other elements enhanced at a similar level,” she said, “whereas Kronos has volatile elements suppressed, which makes it really weird in the general context of stellar abundance patterns.”

In other words, Kronos had an unusually high level of rock-forming minerals, including magnesium, aluminum, silicon, iron, chromium and yttrium, without an equally high level of volatile compounds — those that are most often found in gas form, like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and potassium.

Kronos is already outside the galactic norm, said Oh, and in addition, “because it has a stellar companion to compare it to, it makes the case a little stronger.”

Kronos and Krios are far enough apart that some astronomers have questioned whether the two were in fact a binary pair. Both are about 4 billion years old, and like our own, slightly older sun, both are yellow G-type stars. They orbit each other infrequently, on the order of every 10,000 years or so. An earlier researcher, Jean-Louis Halbwachs of the Observatoire Astronomique of Strasbourg, had identified them as co-moving — moving together — in his 1986 survey, but Oh independently identified them as co-moving based on two-dimensional astrometric information from the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission.

During a group research discussion at the Flatiron Institute, a colleague suggested pooling their data sets. John Brewer, a postdoctoral researcher from Yale University visiting at Columbia University, had been using data from the Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, to calculate the spectrographic chemistries and radial velocities of stars.

“John suggested that maybe we should cross-match my co-moving catalogue with his chemical-abundance catalogue, because it’s interesting to ask whether they have the same compositions,” Oh said.

Binary stars should have matching radial velocities, but that information hadn’t been available in the Gaia dataset, so seeing their matching velocities in Brewer’s data supported the theory that Kronos and Krios, though two light years apart, were a binary set.

Then the researchers noticed the extreme chemical differences between them.

“I’m very easily excitable, so as soon as they had the same radial velocities and different chemistry, my mind already started racing,” said Adrian Price-Whelan, a Lyman Spitzer, Jr. Postdoctoral Fellow in Astrophysical Sciences and a co-author on the paper.

Oh took more convincing, both scientists recalled. “Semyeong is careful and was skeptical,” said Price-Whelan, so her first step was to double-check all the data. Once simple error had been ruled out, they began entertaining various theories. Maybe Kronos and Krios had accreted their planetary disks at different times during stellar formation. That one can’t be tested, said Price-Whelan, but it seems unlikely.

Maybe they only started moving together more recently, after trading partners with another pair of binary stars, a process known as binary exchange. Oh ruled that out with “a simple calculation,” she said. “She’s very modest,” Price-Whelan noted.

Oh’s skepticism was finally overcome when she plotted the chemical abundance pattern as a function of condensation temperature — the temperatures at which volatiles condense into solids. Condensation temperatures play a key role in planetary formation because rocky planets tend to form where it’s warm — closer to a star — while gas giants form more easily in the colder regions far from their star.

She immediately observed that all of the minerals that solidify below 1200 Kelvin were the ones Kronos was low in, while all the minerals that solidify at warmer temperatures were abundant.

“Other processes that change the abundance of elements generically throughout the galaxy don’t give you a trend like that,” said Price-Whelan. “They would selectively enhance certain elements, and it would appear random if you plotted it versus condensation temperatures. The fact that there’s a trend there hinted towards something related to planet formation rather than galactic chemical evolution.”

That was her “Aha!” moment, Oh said. “All of the elements that would make up a rocky planet are exactly the elements that are enhanced on Kronos, and the volatile elements are not enhanced, so that provides a strong argument for a planet engulfment scenario, instead of something else.”

Oh and her colleagues calculated that gaining this many rock-forming minerals without many volatiles would require engulfing roughly 15 Earth-mass planets.

Eating a gas giant wouldn’t give the same result, Price-Whelan explained. Jupiter, for example, has an inner rocky core that could easily have 15 Earth masses of rocky material, but “if you were to take Jupiter and throw it into a star, Jupiter also has this huge gaseous envelope, so you’d also enhance carbon, nitrogen — the volatiles that Semyeong mentioned,” he said. “To flip it around, you have to throw in a bunch of smaller planets.”

While no known star has 15 Earth-sized planets in orbit around it, the Kepler space telescope has detected many multi-planet systems, said Jessie Christiansen, an astronomer at the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute at the California Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research. “I see no problem with there being more than 15 Earth masses of accretable material around a solar-type star.” She pointed to Kepler-11, which has more than 22 Earth masses of material in six planets with close orbits, or HD 219134, which has at least 15 Earth masses of material in its inner four planets.

“At the moment, we are still at the stage of piecing together different observations to determine how and when exoplanets form,” said Christiansen. “It’s difficult to directly observe planet formation around young stars — they are typically shrouded in dust, and the stars themselves are very active, which makes it hard to disentangle any signals from the planets. So we have to infer what we can from the limited information we have. If borne out, this new window onto the masses and compositions of the material in the early stages of planetary systems may provide crucial constraints for planet formation theories.”

The research also has implication for stellar formation models, noted Price-Whelan.

“One of the common assumptions — well-motivated, but it is an assumption — that’s pervasive through galactic astronomy right now is that stars are born with [chemical] abundances, and they then keep those abundances,” he said. “This is an indication that, at least in some cases, that is catastrophically false.”

Europe’s New Test – OpEd

0
0

The recent events in Catalonia are indeed food for thought. Most people were dismayed with the use of force by the Government of Spain to disrupt and invalidate the October 1st referendum on the independence of Catalonia.

It is not as if Catalan independence moves were unknown to the Spanish authorities. Catalonia has a long history of distinctive culture and language both of which have fueled political calls for self-rule. Although many Spaniards point to the unity clause in the Spanish constitution of 1978 (union is indissoluble), there are also provisions written into the same document to ensure the rights of minorities and distinct cultures and languages like those of the Catalans and Basques.

Certainly, it is quite odd to see the Government of Spain and its constitutional court invalidate a referendum on self-determination, which is an internationally recognized right of peoples in international law. Invalidating this right by the Constitution of Spain raises questions about the actual democratic validity of such a constitution. What other rights can the Spanish constitution unilaterally abrogate? Contrary to many of the national politicians of Spain including the King, a constitution itself is no guarantee of rule of law. One has only to think of the USSR and its constitution which allowed the Soviet state to violate the rights of untold numbers of minorities and its satellite states.

However, in making this point, one has to concede that the 1978 Spanish constitution’s intention was to move Spain into the European circle of democratic nations after a prolonged period of fascism under the leadership of the dictator Franco.

One can hardly continue to call for a return to the rule of law based on a constitution which outlaws democratic consultations like voting in a referendum and the right to self-determination. This is the first take away from recent events in addition to the observation that the present crisis has created bad will amongst Catalans towards Spain. The reaction of the separatist Basques is unknown. This result alone is worrying for the Spanish state.

Given the manifest bad faith of the Government of Spain and its backers in the European Union, Catalan President Carles Puidgdemont has had to waffle on the issuance of a unilateral declaration of independence in his speech of October 10th. His is not an easy task since he is managing a political coalition with the separatist left while being subjected to pressure tactics from the Spanish government in Madrid. He has called for discussion and negotiations. Meanwhile, the Government of Spain repeats its empty slogans saying the referendum was illegal and unconstitutional. Having been instrumental in creating the political tensions and crisis by obstructing the exercise of democracy in Catalonia, the Government of Spain is now seeking to have Puigdemont ‘clarify’ his position on whether or not he has declared Catalonia independent or not. Not content to call the Catalan referendum ultra vires, now even efforts to discuss and negotiate are met with derision with accusations that the Catalan President is being ‘unclear’.

A second observation from these recent events in Spain is the lackluster European response. Apart from some feeble reproaches about the referendum violence visited on the Catalan people, the EU has decided to sing from the same song sheet as Spain. The right to self-determination is put aside as the Europeans obediently line up behind the status quo. Apparently, it is easier to deal with post-war states no matter how they behave than it is with democratic independence movements going on under their very noses. The EU has been sleepwalking for some time and needs to re-evaluate some of its basic precepts and values. After all, if the EU is prepared to accept a BREXIT vote approving the breaking off of the United Kingdom, is that really so different from a Catalonia seeking to become a new state given its cultural, linguistic and economic profile? These same questions are asked in the context of Scottish independence moves albeit minus the Spanish coup de force.

In a word, the European response has been reprehensible. Spain is obviously using the EU link as economic blackmail hoping to persuade undecided Catalans to cower in fear rather than seek independence. There is a price to pay for Europe. For example, lecturing Erdogan’s Turkey about respect for minority rights has just become a much more difficult task. The Europeans have damaged their reputation and harkened us back to a much darker age of moral collapse and loss of balance. Like Franco’s Spain, one can detect theoretical currents lurking just under the surface of European ‘political gallantry’ and circumstance. Catalonia is proving Europe an unseemly deception. Before gleefully thumbing their noses at US President Trump and his parade of rednecks and gun runners, the Europeans need to scan their own conscience and summon the moral courage to insist on dialogue in Spain. And, if necessary, the independence of Catalonia.

The European reaction is extremely worrisome for the Quebec independence movement. First, one wonders whether the pro-independence rally in Barcelona where several hundreds of thousands lined the street would be possible in today’s Quebec. The enthusiasm required for such a popular mobilization does not appear to be present now in Quebec. This does not mean that Premier Couillard and the ultra-federalist Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) are safe for re-election in 2018. The recent crushing defeat of the PLQ in the by-election of Louis-Hébert in Québec City is an ominous development in this regard. However, the enthusiasm of the Catalan separatists does not appear to be presently available to any political movement in Quebec. The Energy East pipeline issue could have been that issue but has been rendered irrelevant by the company’s cancellation.

There is a second reason why the events in Catalonia should give pause to the Quebec separatists. France has strongly supported the European Union position of non-intervention. Gone are the glory days of the fading French Gaullists who supported the Quebec independence movement. In the wake of a positive vote on the 1995 Quebec independence referendum, ex-Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau has revealed that the game plan was to get the French parliament to approve the Quebec declaration of independence. In some sense, Catalonia is now at that very stage not having thought out how a unilateral declaration would achieve international recognition. Would Parizeau be successful today in such a gambit? I think not. France has jettisoned la Francophonie for all intents and purposes and Quebec with it. No more special friendship despite kinship links.

Canadians and Americans should not forget the special links we have with the people of Catalonia forged during the Spanish civil war of 1936-9. Thousands of Canadian and American volunteers fought heroically under the flag of the Mackenzie-Papineau brigade on the Republican side against the Spanish fascists under Franco aided by Mussolini and Hitler. About half of the brigade is buried in Catalonia, a region that remained Republican to the bitter end. Fighters from across Canada made the ultimate sacrifice in order that Catalonia be free from dictatorship. Unfortunately, the official reaction from Global Affairs to the crisis in Spain does not reflect this special historical relationship.

In such circumstances, one can only hope for the Government of Spain to radically change its tone and circular reasoning based on a dubious constitutional thesis; that Europe intervenes more energetically to ensure the full recognition of the right to self-determination and rule of law, which do not necessarily translate into apathy, paralysis and the status quo.

*Bruce Mabley is a former Canadian diplomat having served in the Middle East, and is the director of the Mackenzie-Papineau think tank in Montreal.

Media Explode Over Catholic Dress Code – OpEd

0
0

Catholic schools have a dress code. Yeshivas have a dress code. Many Muslim schools have a dress code. Why is it that Jewish and Muslim dress codes never seem to infuriate the media, but Catholic ones drive them crazy? Like the little boy with his nose pressed up against the storefront window, media voyeurs cannot take their eyes off of Catholic traditions.

The dress code for First Communion, as virtually everyone knows, requires a white dress or skirt for girls. But the parents of a student at St. John the Evangelist in St. John, Indiana decided to violate it: they announced that their daughter would be wearing a pant suit. Obviously, they were denied. (The girl was not denied her First Communion, just her participation in the sacrament with her classmates.)

The only real story here is the media’s reaction to it; it is otherwise a non-event. Yet they are hyperventilating everywhere, including overseas.

The “story” has been picked by scores of media outlets, ranging from the Washington Post to the ABC affiliates in Philadelphia, Houston, Chicago, New York, Raleigh-Durham, and Los Angeles. It has also been picked up by media outlets in Canada, the United Kingdom, Morocco, Australia, Istanbul, and Poland. To our knowledge, it has yet to run in any nation in the South China Seas, but this could change.

We know the media are obsessed with Catholic schools, but in the event they want to divert their eyes elsewhere, we recommend the following.

In Hempstead, New York, there is a school, the Crescent School, that provides for “Top Education in an Islamic Environment.” Girls in grades 6-12 must wear a navy blue jilbab (a full sleeved gown), navy blue/black pants, plain white hijab, white socks and black shoes (no heels, open toes, flip flops or fancy party shoes are allowed).

At the Hebrew Academy in New York City, girls cannot wear blouses or shirts that are sleeveless or have short sleeves. Skirts may not have slits in them. Make-up is prohibited.

So what if the parents at the Hebrew Academy object? The penalties are specific. “Do not send your child to school if he/she is not dressed to code. Students will not be allowed in class unless properly attired….Should a student arrive improperly dressed, he/she will be sent to the office to wait until his/her parents come to school with a change of clothing.”

By the way, many public schools also have dress codes. Just this week, a third-grade boy in a Jacksonville, Florida school was sent home because he dyed his hair blue for the school picture. That’s because the boy violated the school’s policy. “Hair shall be clean and well combed or brushed. Extreme hairstyles will not be acceptable.”

Catholic schools did not invent dress codes, but for some reason the media act as if they did. We know what’s driving this mania, and that is why we at the Catholic League have a job. The bigots keep us quite busy. Indeed, by any reasonable measure, we’re considered a growth industry.

3-D Printing Of Aircraft Parts Out Of Titanium

0
0

Physicists from Tomsk Polytechnic University are currently working to create hydrogen-resistant products out of titanium alloys based on additive manufacturing. The production of metal products using the technology ensures less material consumption as well as possibilities to develop complex geometric products. The Russian Science Foundation has recently supported TPU project Development of scientific foundations for the creation of hydrogen-resistant products from titanium alloys Ti-6Al-4V, Ti-6.5Al-3.5Mo-1.5Zr-0.3Si with a gradient structure of the near-surface layer manufactured by the additive manufacturing technology with a grant allocated for three years.

The project is led by Ass. Prof. Natalia Pushilina at the Department of General Physics.

Nowadays, titanium products are widely used in aircraft construction due to their strength. Thus, titanium parts account for 15-20% of a modern civil aircraft. Today, these parts are produced with traditional foundry though. In the framework of the RSF grant, TPU physicists are committed to show advantages of titanium parts produced by using advanced additive technology.

“In Russia it is a fairly new technology. To introduce it, special 3D-printing equipment and powder production installation should be developed. Thus, there is a great scope for research,” explained the scientific leader of the project Natalia Pushilina. “Meantime, this equipment is increasingly in high demand as evidenced by the great number of scientific publications devoted to additive manufacturing technology in the field of metal processing. Over the past few years, their number has significantly increased in leading scientific publication databases, which signifies a great interest in the international community.”

TPU researchers plan to print aircraft parts out of BT6 and BT9 titanium alloys. The former is a widespread material being produced in Russia. The latter is to be obtained by TPU out of crystalline titanium.

“For the research we chose these two materials as they have been applied in aircraft construction due to their properties. Thus, BT6 is used to manufacture turbine parts subject to high temperatures, corrosive media and saturation with atmospheric hydrogen during operation,” said Natalia Pushilina.

According to the researchers, 3D-printing with titanium alloys differs from foundry process in that it relies on additive manufacturing technology that makes it possible to make parts of any configuration, even the most complicated, thus consuming much less material.

‘Titanium alloys are very difficult to process. Accordingly, it is very hard to manufacture parts of complex geometric shape using standard technology.

With 3D-technology you can print any part. This goes beyond mass production supported by plants that daily cast a great deal of products. Our goal is to develop a technology for printing individual complex parts out of titanium,” explained engineer Viktor Kudiyarov, the Department of General Physics.

TPU scientists are now determined to reveal patterns between various print parameters and characteristics of manufactured items. Totally, they identified over 10 parameters. By varying them it is possible to obtain products with different specified properties. An essential part of the future technology is the creation of a gradient structure of the surface layer of the product.

“Our technology allows the production of parts with uniform thickness throughout and parts with a modified surface layer. The modification of the upper layer will improve the properties of the products. For example, it will make them more wear-resistant, more resistant to hydrogen,”  said Viktor Kudiyarov.

Now, such modification of products requires an additional production process. First, a homogeneous part is made, then an additional coating is applied. The technology developed by TPU scientists will allow combining these two processes: details will be printed immediately with a modified layer.

The project will be carried out on the basis of Tomsk Polytechnic University: the team of the Department of General Physics will study various technological modes and properties of the samples obtained, whereas 3D printing will be carried out at the Scientific and Educational Center Modern Production Technologies.

Reengineered Immune System Cells Show Early Promise Against HIV

0
0

Improving on a previous attempt, scientists have developed a new strategy that could potentially be used to reengineer a patient’s own immune system cells to fight HIV. The approach, described in PLOS Pathogens, shows benefit in human cell cultures and in mice.

White blood cells known as T cells play an important role in the immune system’s response to HIV infection, especially if a patient stops taking antiretroviral medications that normally keep the disease under control. However, HIV has several strategies it can use to evade T-cell attack. Therefore, some researchers have proposed reengineering a patient’s own T cells to more effectively fight HIV.

Several attempts to reengineer T cells to fight HIV have been made in the past, including one approach that made it to clinical testing. However, none have yet been successful enough for widespread use. Now, a new attempt by Rachel Leibman, a PhD candidate in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues shows promise.

The new technique builds on the earlier approach that made it to clinical trials, which relied on a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)–a synthetic protein that when added to T cells allows them to fight a specific foe more effectively. In treatment, T cells extracted from a patient’s blood would be reengineered in the lab to express HIV-specific CARs, and then infused back into the patient to fight the virus. (Other CAR-based techniques successfully enhance T cell attack of some cancer cells.)

Using recent advances in CAR technology, Leibman and her colleagues enhanced the CAR protein that had previously made it to clinical testing. The protein consists of several different segments, which the scientists systematically tweaked one by one to optimize their performance. They found that T cells expressing the new CAR were over 50 times more effective than those with the original CAR in preventing viral spread between human cells in the lab.

The researchers also tested the new CAR in mice infected with HIV. They found that mouse T cells reengineered to express the new CAR could protect other T cells in the mice from being attacked and depleted by HIV. In mice that had been receiving antiretroviral treatment, the reengineered T cells delayed rebound of the virus after treatment was stopped.

These findings could pave the way to clinical testing of T-cell reengineering using the new, enhanced CAR. If successful, such an approach could potentially keep HIV under control in the absence of antiretroviral treatment.

“Our data shows for the first time that engineered T cells can significantly control viral rebound in the absence of ART in vivo,” the authors explain. “Our next step is to take this concept forward into the clinic.”

Following Presidential Action, AGS Renews Call For Bipartisan Collaboration

0
0

The Presidential action to alter current US law risks undermining progress made by Congress, the American people, and a cadre of healthcare stakeholders to improve care access, care quality, and care costs for us all as we age, so say experts at the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) evaluating recent orders by the Trump Administration.

The actions in question — one announcing non-specific priorities to increase competition and another terminating cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) serving Americans in poverty — take aim at the Affordable Care Act (ACA) following several flawed unilateral attempts to repeal or replace the law.

“In bypassing Congress and bipartisan collaboration, these executive actions cut the American people out of the health reform process while also effectively jeopardizing benefits, increasing costs, and reducing coverage for too many of us,” said Nancy E. Lundebjerg, MPA, Chief Executive Officer of the AGS. “We continue to offer our support and expertise to the many bipartisan legislators and experts working across the aisle on proposals that would give us all the opportunity to make open, informed decisions about a better health system.”

In an Executive Order issued Thursday, Oct. 12, President Trump announced his general priorities for association health plans; short-term, limited-duration insurance; and health reimbursement arrangements aimed at “provid[ing] meaningful choice or competition.” Without greater clarity on how the Administration intends to develop these priorities as policies, however, experts at the AGS and across healthcare already have voiced concern that such action could lead to increased costs and reduced protections for those who need health coverage most.

Even more troubling, the White House also announced today that it would terminate payments intended by the ACA to assist insurers in offering CSRs for people and families living in poverty. The effect of terminating these payments has already been well analyzed, including a report from the Congressional Budget Office noting that curtailing CSRs would lead to considerable premium increases for consumers as insurers worked to cover cost gaps.

In light of these concerns, the AGS continues to call for stakeholder input, public hearings, and ample opportunities for feedback on health reform from the American public. “Doing so,” said Lundebjerg, “is our best chance for a future when all of us can have access to high-quality, person-centered, and affordable health care.”


Saudi Arabia Welcomes ‘Firm’ US Strategy On Iran

0
0

Saudi Arabia has welcomed Donald Trump’s “firm” strategy on Iran after the US president declined to certify Tehran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, according to the Kingdom’s state news agency.

Trump on Friday warned he might ultimately terminate the deal, as he announced a new Iran strategy that includes additional measures to ensure the “rogue regime” in Tehran does not destabilize the region or acquire nuclear weapons.

The nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Iran signed with six nations including the US — limits Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities in return for sanctions relief.

Trump announced the major shift in US policy in a speech in which he detailed a more confrontational approach to Iran over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and alleged support for extremist groups in the Middle East, Reuters reported.

“I am directing my administration to work closely with Congress and our allies to address the (nuclear) deal’s many serious flaws so that the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons,” Trump said.

Saudi Arabia praised Trump’s “vision” and commitment to work with US allies in the region in order to face “common challenges, particularly Iran’s aggressive policies and actions,” according to the Saudi Press Agency.

A statement stressed that Saudi Arabia had previously supported the nuclear agreement between Iran and the “5 + 1” powers, in the belief that it is necessary to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But it added that Iran had “exploited” the economic benefits of eased sanctions and continued to “destabilize the region.”

The Saudi statement pointed to Iran’s ballistic missile development program and alleged support of terrorism in the region, including its backing of Hezbollah and Houthi militias in Yemen.

Iran continues in its “aggressive” approach through the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Houthi militia, has repeatedly targeted international navigation passageways in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf, and has launched cyberattacks against the Kingdom and other regional countries, the statement said.

President Trump stressed the importance of denying the IRGC funding for its “malign” activities. The US Treasury Department on Friday added the IRGC to its sanctions list “for providing support to a number of terrorist groups,” including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban.

While Trump’s decision does not abrogate the nuclear deal itself, it leaves open the possibility that the US Congress will respond by levying new sanctions on Iran. Iranian officials have threatened to pull out of the agreement should the US impose new sanctions. Tehran has also made it clear that it is not willing to renegotiate the agreement.

Marcelle Wahba, former US ambassador to the UAE and current president of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, said that the new US policy shows Trump is getting tough on Iran.

“I think the president believes not certifying the agreement will send a clear message to Iran that the US intends to push back on Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region and particularly over its support of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah,” Wahba told Arab News.

Harvard scholar and Iran specialist Majid Rafizadeh told Arab News that the “decertification of the nuclear deal should be part of a broader strategy to pressure Tehran for its belligerent behavior,ballistic missile tests, and military adventurism.”

Uber Appeals Decision To Withdraw London License

0
0

Uber on Friday filed notification of its intention to appeal the London transport regulator’s decision to withdraw its license to operate in the market, TechCrunch reports.

“While we have today filed our appeal so that Londoners can continue using our app, we hope to continue having constructive discussions with Transport for London,” an Uber spokesman told us. “As our new CEO has said, we are determined to make things right.”

Despite being judged unfit to operate and having licensing withdrawn by the local regulator, Uber can continue to operate in London during the appeals process.

Its spokesman added that details of Uber’s arguments against the decision will not be released until nearer the time of the appeal being heard.

Reuters is reporting that a hearing is likely to take place on December 11, citing a spokesman at Britain’s Judicial Office.

A spokesperson for Westminster Magistrates’ Court did not confirm this date but told us: “The court are aware of Uber’s appeal against TFL. The parties will be made aware of the [appeals hearing] date formally.”

Late last month Transport for London sent shock waves through Uber after announcing it would not be renewing the company’s private hire vehicle license to operate in its most important European market — where it claims to have some 3.5 million and around 40,000 drivers.

TfL said Uber had demonstrated “a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications”.

After the decision was announced new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi wrote an apology in a London newspaper, saying sorry for Uber’s “mistakes”. He also made a personal visit to the city for talks with the regulator. And tweeted to urge London to work with the company “to make things right”.

However yesterday, at a question time session, London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, confirmed TfL would be standing by its decision and defending it in court, saying: “The courts now will consider the appeal from Uber and of course TfL will defend the decision they made.”

TfL listed four issues in its Uber license decision — namely: Uber’s approach to reporting serious criminal offenses; its approach to how driver medical certificates are obtained; its approach to carrying out background checks to ensure drivers do not have a criminal record; and how it has explained its use of internal software (codenamed Greyball) in London — software apparently designed to try to block regulatory oversight.

London’s Met Police had written to the regulator when it was still considering Uber’s license renewal accusing the company of systematically failing to report the most serious allegations of criminal behavior on its platform.

Uber has since said it’s working with London’s Met Police on a new system for reporting serious crimes

King Mohammed VI Urges Integrated Vision To Grant Fresh Momentum To Morocco – OpEd

0
0

On the occasion of the opening of the first session of the second legislative year of the tenth legislature, King Mohammed VI delivered a powerful speech before the members of both Lower and Upper houses. In his speech, the king ordered both the members of the government and the parliamentarians to deploy more efforts and to show real commitment to rethink Morocco’s development model since the country’s anti-poverty programs have proved their limit and therefore are no longer working.

King Mohammed VI clearly stated that the management of social programs has proved its inefficiency and therefore “greater firmness is needed to break with the laissez-faire and fraudulent practices that harm the interests of citizens.”

The Monarch stressed the fact that tougher monitoring of all programs launched in different regions of the kingdom is highly needed. For that he instructed the Court of Auditors to monitor and assess the implementation of public projects in all of the Kingdom’s regions and ordered the government to revise and assess the development model to address imbalances.

The king also announced the creation of a Ministry of African Affairs that will be in charge of following up and promoting the kingdom’s investments around Africa.

Here follows the full text of the Royal speech:

“Praise be to God

May peace and blessings be upon the Prophet, His Kith and Kin

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

It is with pride and joy that I address you, once again, as I do every year, on the occasion of the State Opening of Parliament.

This Parliament Session follows on the heels of my State of the Nation Address, in which I mentioned some of the difficulties and shortcomings noticed in our development model, with regard to administrative services, across the board, as well as elected councils and local governments.

However, that critical analysis, which the current situation calls for, is not an end in itself.

In fact, it is the beginning of a crucial stage in which the holding public office is linked with accountability, and during which appropriate answers and solutions to citizens’ pressing problems and issues must be found.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

I do not criticize just for the sake of criticizing, nor do I let matters go unattended. What I want is for the situation to be addressed, mistakes corrected and shortcomings remedied.

I am paving the way for an effective approach and for a March of a new kind. What I am doing is at the heart of my constitutional powers. It reflects my strong determination to press ahead with the reform process and to lead by example, for those who are in charge of public affairs.

As the guarantor and custodian of the rule of law, and the first person to respect it, I have never hesitated to hold to account anyone who has patently underperformed while carrying out his or her professional or national duties.

However, the situation today commands greater firmness in order to put an end to complacency and to disregard for citizens’ interests.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

The problems are obvious and the priorities clear. No further diagnosis is required. In fact, the situation has been abundantly analyzed.

On many occasions, we have taken stock of the reality on the ground and of the magnitude of the shortcomings, which all Moroccans are aware of.

Is it not true that good implementation of the development projects that have been planned and launched is what is required? Is it not a fact that we have to find practical, applicable solutions to the real problems, and fulfil the reasonable, legitimate expectations of citizens in the areas of development, education, health, employment and so on?

At the same time, we have to make sure that there is judicious, continuous monitoring of the progress made in the implementation of social and development programs, and that we carry out systematic, impartial assessment throughout the implementation phases.

To this end, I have decided to create a ministerial department, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in charge of African affairs – especially investment – as well as a monitoring unit, both at the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Finance.

I also call on the Court of Auditors to monitor and assess the implementation of public projects in all of the Kingdom’s regions.

Moroccans today need balanced, equitable development which ensures dignity for all, guarantees income, provides jobs – especially for our young people – and contributes to building confidence, promoting stability and ensuring integration into professional, social and family life, a goal to which all citizens aspire.

They also want health coverage for all, easy access to quality medical services and their dignity to be preserved.

Today, Moroccans want a good education for their children – one that does not simply stop at reading and writing. They want an education that guarantees integration into the knowledge and communication-based world; an education that gives access to the job market and contributes to individual and collective advancement, instead of producing large numbers of unemployed people.

Moroccans also need a fair and effective judiciary. They want an efficient public service that caters for the needs of citizens and serves public interest; a public service that promotes investment and fosters development, without any form of bribery, cronyism or corruption.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

Although Morocco has made tangible progress, which is recognized throughout the world, we have to admit that our national development model no longer responds to citizens’ growing demands and pressing needs; it has not been able to reduce disparities between segments of the population, correct inter-regional imbalances or achieve social justice.

In this regard, I call upon the government, Parliament and all the institutions and organs concerned – each in its respective fields of competence – to reconsider our development model in order to keep abreast of changes in the country.

As far as our development model is concerned, I should like to see an integrated vision that gives it fresh momentum, that helps overcome the hurdles impeding its adjustment and that addresses the weaknesses and shortcomings revealed by past practi

Using a participatory approach similar to the one we adopt on key issues, such as the amendment of the Constitution or advanced regionalization, I call for all national stakeholders, committed actors and the nation’s driving forces to be included in this endeavor.

I also recommend objectivity and calling a spade a spade, without flattery or embellishment. I call for innovative, bold solutions, even if that means going into uncharted territory or causing a political earthquake.

I want this to be a collective national pause to address issues and problems that are troubling Moroccans. I want it to foster awareness of the need to change mindsets that stand in the way of achieving the comprehensive progress to which we aspire.

I am keen to follow up on this matter and look forward to examining the proposals and measures that need to be implemented for this new development model to be produced.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

Regardless of how thorough and full-fledged it is, a development model will remain limited in scope if it does not comprise effective mechanisms that allow for evolution at local and regional levels.

For this reason, I have been calling for the full implementation of advanced regionalization to be speeded up because that system provides solutions and fulfils social and development expectations in all of our regions.

Regionalization is not just about administrative regulations and procedures. It also involves far-reaching changes in state structures as well as a practical approach to local governance.

This is the most effective way to tackle local problems and respond to the demands of local populations since it involves listening to citizens and including them in decision-making, especially through their representatives in elected councils.

I realize there are no ready-made solutions to the problems encountered in the various regions. However, I insist on the need to ensure that public policies address the concerns of citizens, in the light of the needs and specific features of each region.

To make the management of local public affairs more efficient, I wish to emphasize the need to assign qualified human resources to regions and to provide them with sufficient financial resources, in addition to ensuring the devolution of powers.

In this regard, I ask the government to establish a timetable for completing the implementation of advanced regionalization.

I also urge elected councils, particularly at regional level, to shoulder their responsibility when managing affairs in their regions, and to take action to respond to the needs of local populations and answer their legitimate demands.

I also call for the preparation and adoption of an advanced administrative devolution charter, which I have long been advocating, and for a precise timetable for its implementation to be set.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

Regrettably, the progress witnessed in Morocco does not benefit all citizens, especially our young people, whom I care deeply about and who account for more than a third of the population.

The proper training of young Moroccans and their active and constructive involvement in public life are among the most important challenges that ought to be met. I have emphasized, many a time, including in my address on 20 August 2012, that young people are our real asset. They need to be seen as the engine of growth, and not an obstacle to it.

As a matter of fact, societal developments in Morocco have made young people important new players with a significant impact on public life.

Despite the efforts made, I do not consider the situation of our youths to be heartwarming – and neither do they. Indeed, many young Moroccans are suffering from exclusion and unemployment; many have dropped out of school and many are even deprived of basic social services.

The education and training system does not fulfil its role in terms of training young people and ensuring their integration into society.

Although they focus their attention on young people, social and sector-specific public policies have only a limited impact on the situation of young Moroccans because of a lack of efficiency and coordination, and because programs are not suited to all youth groups.

Given the close link between youth issues, economic growth investment and employment, addressing the concerns of young people requires innovative action and concrete projects that unlock their potential, provide them with jobs and a steady income, offer them stability and enable them to contribute effectively to their country’s development.

A case in point is the situation of young people working in the informal sector. Realistic solutions are needed in this regard. They do not necessarily require substantial material resources, and yet they would offer young people the means and opportunities to work legally.. Both our young people and society would benefit from this.

I call for the development of a new integrated youth policy – similar to the National Initiative for Human Development – that would be based primarily on training and employment. It should be effective in terms of finding realistic solutions to the actual problems plaguing our youths, especially in rural areas and poor suburban neighborhoods.

To ensure the efficiency and success of this new policy, I recommend that inspiration be drawn from the provisions of the Constitution, that young people be able to voice their concerns, that different intellectual trends be reflected and that the findings of the reports and studies I ordered be built upon, particularly the ones on “Morocco’s overall wealth”, the “Education and Training Vision for 2030” and so on..

As part of the measures to develop and adopt that policy, I call for the Advisory Council for Youth and Community Action to be rapidly set up as a constitutional institution and as a forum for discussion, for expressing views and for monitoring youth affairs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Members of Parliament,

The shortcomings plaguing the management of public affairs are not inevitable. It is not impossible to overcome them, provided there is a sincere will and good use is made of the means available.

This is a matter that lies with you as members of Parliament, as public servants and as elected officials. You are accountable before God, the people and the King for the situation prevailing in the country.

Therefore, you are expected to engage in national efforts responsibly and in good faith in order to change the situation, without regard for any political or partisan considerations.

This homeland belongs to all Moroccans, and all Moroccan citizens are entitled to benefit from progress and growth.

As I invoke Almighty God’s blessings upon you, I want you to rise to the occasion and discharge your tremendous national duties, for the benefit of the nation and citizens.

Almighty God says: “Then, when you have taken a decision put your trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him)”. True is the Word of God.

Kyrgyzstan: Pressure Mounts On Presidential Contender

0
0

By Timur Toktonaliev

Analysts are warning that mounting pressure on presidential candidate Omurbek Babanov casts doubt on President Atambek Atambaev’s promises that next week’s presidential election will be fair and free.

Multimillionaire businessman Babkov is considered the main rival to former prime minister Sooronbai Zheenbekov, clearly Atambaev’s preferred successor.

In recent weeks, Babanov has been pursued by a series of negative media stories, including that he tried to incite ethnic unrest in a speech to the Uzbek community in the village of On Adyr in the Osh region. In June 2010, deadly ethnic violence in the south left hundreds of people, mostly Uzbeks, dead.

Babanov’s campaign team said that exerpts from the speech had been taken out of context to imply the candidate’s sympathies lay with the country’s Uzbek minority. Nonetheless, the state security services opened an investigation into Babanov’s comments.

In another incident, a high-profile meeting Babanov held with Kazak president Nursultan Nazarbayev last month spurred Atambaev to deliver an emotional speech denouncing what he described as interference in domestic Kyrgyz affairs.

Perhaps most damaging, Kyrgyz security forces last week detained lawmaker and Babanov supporter Kanat Isaev on suspicion of planning to foment violence in the event of an unfavourable election result.

At an October 1 press conference, Babanov said that those chargres were clearly politically motivated and made plain that the bad publicity over his On Adyr speech, his Nazarbayev meeting and Isaev’s arrest were interlinked.

“The main goal is to tarnish my image,” Babanov told journalists. “Do not rise to it, do not be swayed by emotion. Everyone can see that we are winning this election. And, no matter what, we will continue our election campaign more intensely and confidently.”

Atambaev, who is constitutionally barred from seeking another term, has repeatedly said that he would ensure a fair and honest election on October 15. However, he has made his support for Zheenbekov clear.

Babanov himself has received three warnings from the Central Election Commission (CEC) over the past two weeks for violating campaigning rules. His team said in response that the CEC was showing bias and favouring Zheenbekov.

CONTEST GETS CLOSER

The two main contenders held a television debate on October 10, in which Babanov challenged Zheenbekov over issues of corruption. Zheenbekov responded more aggressively, even appearing to issue a veiled threat against his rival.

“I have many questions for you, but I’ll ask them some other time. I’ll start the fight against corruption with you,” Zheenbekov said.

Following the debate, Babanov filed a complaint to the president and called for Atambaev to keep his promise to ensure fair and honest elections.

Some analysts believe that Babanov has been careful to not confront Atambaev too directly, fearing possible retribution.

Former lawmaker Omurbek Tekebaev, an Atambaev ally who became one of his fiercest critics, was earlier this year sentenced to eight years in prison for fraud in a case that many deemed politically motivated.

“The situation is now that any criticism of the president can lead to the initiation of criminal cases and lawsuits by the prosecutor general’s office,” said Aida Alymbaeva, a lecturer in political science at the International University of Central Asia (IUAC).

“Babanov is a businessman with major interests in Kyrgyzstan, he has a lot to lose, so does not want to spoil his direct relations with Atambaev,” Alymbaeva concluded.

John MacLeod, analyst for Russia and the CIS countries at Oxford Analytics, and a former IWPR managing editor, agreed.

“The tone of their remarks in the debate was certainly different. Babanov did defend himself and challenge Zheenbekov on corruption, but as you note, in milder terms. It must be difficult to campaign when the atmosphere has become so bitter and personal, with such serious accusations flying around”, he said.

MacLeod said that “the fact that Atambaev is stepping down, despite any concerns he has about what comes next, is pretty unique in this region”.

“However, some of his statements suggest a worrying attitude to democracy: suggestions that it is a foreign import and that anyone who opposes him is in some way against Kyrgyzstan”, he continued.

Andrei Grozin, head of the Central Asia department at the Moscow Institute of CIS countries, said that Babanov’s meeting with the Kazak president had been a particularly fateful moment.

“The supreme powers [of Kyrgyzstan] probably arrived at the conclusion that, after the Nazarbayev meeting, Babanov’s chances of winning sharply increased,” Grozin said. “In my opinion, Nursultan Nazarbayev enjoys the same level of popularity among the Kyrgyz population as Atambaev, or maybe even more.”

He said that it was clear pressure on Babnov had been stepped up after the photo session of him shaking hands with Nazarbayev.

“Obviously, the people from Atambaev’s team thought it was very dangerous and he should be stopped. So they are obstructing him as much as they can.”

MacLeod noted that such meetings were not unusual, adding that in 2010 Atambaev and other politicians held high-profile meetings with senior officials from both Russia and Kazakstan

“It is really Atambaev who is making this into a big issue,” he continued. “Assuming Zheenbekov wins, Atambaev has just made his life more difficult with such unusual – I think unprecedented – hostile language against Kazakstan, in recent history Kyrgyzstan’s best friend in the region”.

However, MacLeod argued that despite Atambaev’s more recent comments, the election campaign had still been largely competitive and fair.

“One gets the impression that it is Atambaev, not Babanov, who has changed,” he concluded. “Presumably he [Atambaev] has begun to fear that Zheenbekov might lose and has adopted this new rhetoric.”

This article was published at IWPR’s RCA 821

Macron Aims To Disrupt European Politics Ahead Of 2019 EU Elections

0
0

By Cécile Barbière

(EurActiv) — Ahead of the 2019 EU elections, Macron’s Republique en Marche (REM) party is torn between creating a new political group in the European Parliament or sitting with the centre. EURACTIV France reports.

Coalition or solo ride? After Macron’s tour of France, the upcoming European parliamentary elections in 2019 have provided a new impetus to REM, the president’s party.

This vote takes places every five years in all countries of the bloc. And since 1976, three large parties or “groups”, as they’re called in Brussels, dominate the assembly: the European People’s Party (EPP), the European Socialist & Democratic party (S&D), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).

The latter, closer to Macron’s REM, hasn’t received any formal application from REM.

“Formally, they haven’t yet become part of any European group,” said Didrik de Schaetzen, communication director for ALDE.

On paper, political relations are quite real: Macron is close to Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel and his Luxembourg counterpart, Xavier Bettel – whose parties are both affiliated with ALDE.

During the presidential campaign, REM’s alliance with centrist political party MODEM – itself a member of ALDE group – had strengthened the links between Macron and Guy Verhofstadt’s group.

But the affiliation is far from certain. “Regarding ALDE, [affiliation] will not happen automatically. We are more progressive than liberal. We want to speak with everyone,” said Arnaud Leroy, one of REM’s directors.

“For the 2019 elections, we want to disrupt the European political game like we did in France. We are more inclined towards creating something ex nihilo,” he explained.

A European challenge

REM’s ambition at the European level could prove harder than in France. “In France, we didn’t have a centrist party. But in Europe, there is less room for manoeuvre. Achieving what Macron did in France will be more difficult at European level”, said a European political source.

“We need to speak about programmes: we don’t just want to talk about the eurozone, we also want to talk about citizens. People need to find the gist of the European project,” explained Arnaud Leroy.

For now, contacts with different parties are multiplying in Belgium and the Netherlands, or with a part of the German socialists (SPD) and Greens, the Ciudadanos Party in Spain, and Renzi’s movement in Italy.

And it’s with the last one that things could work out. “If Matteo Renzi wins the next elections in Italy, this could change Macron’s game,” said a Brussels source.

Spitzenkandidaten

The issue of alliances will have to be dealt with quickly. Macron has promised a “real campaign” for the European elections and the procedure of choosing a group leader or Spitzenkandidate forces EU groups to find an agreement on who to nominate months in advance.

In 2014, European parties chose their candidates for the presidency of the European Commission ahead of the vote. And Jean-Claude Juncker, the EPP’s candidate, became EU chief after the centre-right won the majority of seats.

For 2019, ALDE’s president Guy Verhofstadt could once again run for the liberals. The decision will have to be taken by the end of next year. But for the moment, REM does not reject the option of presenting its own candidate “against Verhofstadt”, explains Arnaud Leroy.

“It is not easy to find people who are known at the European level – there is a real notoriety issue,” REM’s official admitted.

Other political figures, like the chief Brexit negotiator, Frenchman Michel Barnier, could tick all the boxes. “He has the confidence of a president and we remain quite open as we already have Republican ministers,” said Arnaud Leroy.

Improving Disaster Response: Role Of Knowledge Sharing – Analysis

0
0

The Asia-Pacific region is the world’s most disaster-prone region; a more efficient, coordinated disaster management system has never been needed more. There is growing recognition that a robust system of information and knowledge exchange can enhance coordination in humanitarian responses and relief efforts.

By Christopher Chen*

The humanitarian system – the global network of players who extend assistance to victims of disasters and conflict – remains wedded to a ‘silo management’ structure. This needs to shift to a more collaborative process of disaster management. The lack of a cohesive multilateral coordination strategy results in a significant amount of duplication and the inefficient use of resources.

Humanitarian stakeholders need to work towards ensuring that they are operationally compatible with one another in preparation for future disasters. This involves the active sharing of knowledge and institutional best practices amongst relief providers, civil society, donors, military, and governments. This engagement should not be limited to a top-down approach, but also involve a bi-directional process of interaction.

What’s New?

The digital revolution has seen many practitioners push for open data exchange yet there remains a distinct lack of comprehensive data and knowledge available. At best, practitioners have partial access to raw data. More often than not, they are faced with data narratives, which only give surface-level information. There is also a disparity in access to data amongst stakeholders.

The data asymmetry problem needs to be addressed to allow lessons learnt and best practices to be shared with everyone in the humanitarian sphere. Recently, various organisations have attempted to build more extensive platforms that integrate knowledge from multiple organisations by using collaborative software technologies.

In 2010, the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) found that NGO coordination in humanitarian situations often occurred without sufficient practical guidance and blueprints. In response to this, the ICVA established an online platform – the NGO Coordination Resource Centre – which offers easy access to resources which can support practitioners in the field.

These resources include sample Terms of reference (TOR) for NGO coordination, checklists for efficient NGO organisation, and funding strategies. Such resources can help to facilitate coordination efforts during disaster management. Comprehensive databases also provide regional and local actors with insights to global standards of humanitarian aid. They can use this information to shape their own response mechanisms.

Contact management systems have also been created to make humanitarian efforts better coordinated. Developed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2015, the Humanitarian ID Initiative comprises a global directory of humanitarian professionals.

Humanitarian workers simply have to create an account online, ‘check in’ when they start working on a new emergency, and they will have immediate access to the contact information of other practitioners working on the same emergency. Users are also able to use their Humanitarian ID to access several other online resources such as ReliefWeb, ACAPS, and HumanitarianResponse.

What’s Stopping Us?

Even with these developments in collaborative software technologies, knowledge exchange can only take place if those involved make a conscious effort to do so. The unwillingness to share critical information is perhaps the main impediment to coordination in the humanitarian sector.

The desire for inter-organisational cooperation is one that policy-makers and practitioners often talk about. However, these words rarely translate into definitive action. NGOs are very individualistic, with their different mandates, core values, ideals, and guiding principles. Organisations with different agendas have little motivation to work together.

Some have mandates which prevent them from engaging with certain actors and this is exacerbated by the need to compete for donor aid. This all means that the humanitarian environment disincentivises the sharing of vital information and knowledge.

Moreover, the larger, more established INGOs often fail to engage adequately with their smaller, locally-based counterparts. While initiatives, such as the UN Cluster Approach, aim to foster better coordination in global humanitarian efforts, the reality is that there is still an obvious disconnect between the large international players and their local counterparts. This then creates a knock-on effect where key decision-makers are disconnected from the realities on the ground.

Need for a Paradigm Shift

There is a pressing need to address the institutional insularity and agenda-driven approaches that still exist in the humanitarian sector. The larger international organisations should strive to build linkages and partnerships with local actors in different regions through sustained engagement over the longer term and not limit their collaboration to only when disasters strike.

Some organisations have already embraced this notion. The IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation adopts a mentor role for humanitarian organisations around the world. Besides offering financial assistance, it also conducts regional training sessions and capacity-building exercises for local NGOs. At the same time, it engages in constant bi-directional dialogue with them through getting their feedback, incorporating it into policy decisions, and using it to improve their own practices.

Closer to home, ASEAN’s Emergency Response and Assessment Team (ERAT) sources its members from within the member states. In the event of a disaster, this arrangement enables other external disaster responders to tap on the in-country ERAT members’ understandings of the conditions on the ground. This allows the integration of local knowledge into the decision-making processes of the wider ASEAN Community.

Local humanitarian practitioners are usually the first responders in disaster-stricken areas. It is important to invest in their capacity for action and leverage on their local knowledge when international aid is needed. An open system of knowledge exchange enables more actors to share and evaluate datasets. This collaborative effort teases out more nuances in disaster relief operations which might otherwise have been missed.

The current and increasing threat posed by disasters needs more robust humanitarian responses from practitioners. This can only be achieved if knowledge is actively exchanged, shared and utilised between humanitarian actors. Collaboration is often an overly-romanticised notion. Even so, it is necessary for humanitarian actors to keep working towards this to ensure they are better prepared to respond to the disasters we face in this region.

*Christopher Chen is a Research Associate with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

Cowboy’s Boss Draws Line In Sand: ‘Stand For Anthem Or Else – OpEd

0
0

Do employers have the right to force their employees to participate in ritual displays of patriotism?

Many people think they do. Many people think that owners of football teams have the right to make their players stand at attention during the National Anthem.

But if bosses can require their employees stand for the anthem, then what’s to stop them from making them say a prayer too?  It’s the same thing, isn’t it? In both cases, employees are being compelled to conform to behavior that may or may not be consistent with their own beliefs. How does that square with the First amendment or is that rule no longer applicable?

Here’s how the Supreme Court came down on the matter:

“The constitutionally guaranteed ‘freedom to be intellectually … diverse or even contrary,’ and the ‘right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order,’ encompass the freedom to express publicly one’s opinions about our flag, including those opinions which are defiant or contemptuous.”

Supreme Court of the United States in Street v. New York (1969)

Of course, that doesn’t explain whether employees have the right to express their beliefs freely in the workplace or not. That’s an entirely different question, and it’s one that has been answered differently by the owners and the players union. According to MSN News:

“A labor union that represents workers in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana has filed a charge alleging that Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has violated the National Labor Relations Act with his threats to discipline players if they protest during the national anthem. Local 100 of the United Labor Unions filed the complaint Tuesday with the Fort Worth, Texas, office of the National Labor Relations Board. It asks the NLRB to “investigate preemptively in order to prevent illegal firings of players.”

Wade Rathke, chief organizer of Local 100, accuses Jones of violating the act, which prohibits employers from intimidating or threatening workers for their “concerted activity.”

Rathke said the NFL has already established that there is no condition of work that requires players to stand during the anthem. He said players have the right to protest and act concertedly at their workplace – the playing field. Jones is violating the act by attempting to prevent them from doing so, he said. (“Labor union files complaint against Jerry Jones over anthem threat “, MSN News)

“You can’t discipline somebody for something that is a right they have under the law, whether that discipline be termination or benching or giving a slap on the wrist or writing up in their files they’ve been a bad boy,” Rathke told ESPN. “I know in the modern age people think workers shouldn’t have rights, but they still do.”

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones takes an entirely different approach. He not only thinks he is well within his rights to require his players to stand during the anthem, he also cites an arcane excerpt from the  NFL Game Operations Manual which appears to support his position. Here’s the excerpt:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sidelines for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, facing the flag, hold helmets in the left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should make sure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines suspensions and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s), for violations of the above, including first offenses.”

Jones had the above quote in mind when he lowered the boom on his players on Monday saying,  “If there is anything disrespecting the flag, then we will not play. Period. We’re going to respect the flag and I’m going to create the perception of it.” Jones also added that “there are no exceptions to this rule or this policy. Any player who disrespects the flag or does not stand for the anthem will not play in the game.”

So that’s that. The battle lines have been drawn and both sides are digging in. No matter how you cut it, there’s going to be a clash.

It’s not entirely clear why Jones decided to take such a hardline stance on the matter.   After all,  since the flap began in 2016 –when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first sat out the anthem to draw attention to racial injustice and police brutality —  not one Dallas player has ‘sat or taken a knee’  in support. Not one. In other words, it’s not a problem that’s effected the Cowboys at all. So why has Jones decided to spearhead this reactionary movement? And why has he put his own players in such a tough position where they either have to follow his diktats and seem like weaklings or “take a knee” and get scrubbed from the roster?  Why?

Keep in mind, the reason Kaepernick’s protest has not caught on is not because black NFL players don’t think that police brutality is a problem. They know its a problem. Every black man, woman and child living in the US today, knows that police violence is a problem, just like they know that not everyone who lives under Old Glory enjoys the same benefits of security and freedom. They know that from their own experience, they don’t need Kaepernick to remind them of it.

But black athletes are like everyone else. They like the fame, they like the praise and they like money. What they don’t like is getting skewered in the media for defending unpopular causes. They don’t like that at all.   That’s why– except for a few brave souls who have selflessly put themselves on the chopping block–  the vast majority of black players have avoided the protest altogether. They’d rather just do their jobs, grab a paycheck, and get on with life like everyone else. How can you blame them?

But Jones has made that impossible.  He’s drawn a line in the sand and forced his players to do something that many of them really don’t want to do, take a position.

Why? Why has Jones backed his players into a corner with no way to out? Does he want to inflame the situation even more? Does he want to exacerbate racial divisions? Does he want a bloody standoff that splits the country into enemy camps? What’s he trying to achieve??

Everyone knows what happens when you give a proud, successful adult an ultimatum.

They resent it. No one likes to be told what they can and can’t do, what they can and can’t say, and what they can and can’t believe. Nobody.

So why did Jones decide he had to be the big Bossman ordering his players around like they were his personal servants? That’s not the way you treat people, not if you respect them that is.

Jones did it because of Trump. That’s right, according to CBS News, Trump and Jones have been huddling on the issue and figured out how they wanted to handle it.. Here’s a clip from an article at CBS News:

“Jones also revealed that he’s been speaking with Donald Trump about the protests…..Trump…has made it clear that he believes players should be fired for kneeling during the anthem and that the NFL should create a rule to make it mandatory. A rule does not currently exist, but NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart said on Tuesday that “there will be a discussion about the entire issue.” (cbssports.com)

Trump also directed Jones to the NFL Game Operations Manual which suggests how players should behave during the playing of the anthem and the penalties associated with violations to the rule.”

Huh?  So Trump actually had his lackeys dig through the NFL Manual to come up with something that would force the players to do as they were told?

Why? What possible benefit does Trump derive from turning a little NFL brushfire into a raging  inferno consuming everything in its path? What does he get out of this?

Trump is just being Trump,  a lumbering, opinionated troublemaker who gets his kicks out of knocking over furniture and breaking dishes. That’s Trump in a nutshell. But there’s something else going on here too. Trump seems determined to stomp out those ‘upstart’ blacks who use their celebrity to draw attention to social justice issues. He can’t allow that, after all, in Trump’s world the primary duty of law enforcement is to create a secure environment for the 1 percent to make bigger profits. That means that the actions of the state’s shock troops have to be defended tooth-n-nail no matter how repressive or violent they may be. That’s why Trump is reaching way beyond the president’s traditional purview to crush the protest movement, punish the instigators and collectively brand anyone who sympathizes with their cause as an unpatriotic flag-hating traitor. That seems to be the broader objective here. Trump is redefining patriotism as the mindless acquiescence to ritual forms of state worship (the likes of which were on full display in Nuremburg in 1938) rather than honoring the foundational principle of free speech which gives the flag its true meaning.

Trump’s open hostility towards the Kaepernick and his supporters has breathed new life into the protest movement pitting one group against the other. This latest stunt by Jones merely adds more gas to a fire that Trump would like to see spread across the country triggering a resurgence of his ever-dwindling right-wing base. This is the type of chaotic situation in which Trump excels, so NFL players should proceed with caution. Players must be disciplined, restrained and “on message” if they hope to succeed. And, they can succeed, in fact, they can win big!

Players believe they have a constitutional right to express themselves in uniform in their workplace. But do they?

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano,

“It depends where the players are when they take a knee. Some jurisdictions — such as California, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York — give more protection to employees for expressive conduct in the workplace than others do. When the expressive conduct — taking a knee, bowing one’s head, locking arms with colleagues — occurs in the workplace, the issue is not necessarily one of free speech, because the First Amendment only comes into play when the government itself is accused of infringing upon or compelling speech. In the NFL, the alleged infringers of speech or compellers of speech are team management, not the government.

Expressive conduct — lawful behavior that offers a political opinion — is the constitutional equivalent of free speech. So interfering with expressive conduct or commanding its cessation in conformity to management’s political or patriotic views constitutes interfering with speech. May employers do that?

In states where expressive conduct in the workplace is protected, employees may express themselves as long as they do not materially interfere with the business of the workplace. In states without that employee protection, they may not do so….

However, even in the states that lack the employee expression protection, if management’s instructions to conform require conformance on property that the government owns, such as a publicly owned stadium, then management is treated constitutionally as if it were the government. Just as the government cannot interfere with speech to suppress its content or to compel conformity, neither may team management when teams play on government-owned land.”

“Is Taking a Knee Protected Speech?”, Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell.com

The point is, the issue is not ‘cut and dry’, there appears to be some gray area about the legality of the protest. There is, however,  broad public consensus that the players have the right to peacefully demonstrate. And this is crucial, because public opinion is going to weigh very heavily in the outcome.

It’s worth noting that the NFL honchos have taken a completely different approach than Jones or Trump. The league has not changed its position on sitting during the anthem. They don’t like it, (it hurts their brand), but they will tolerate it. Also, the league has not issued any edicts that forbid the protest, in fact, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has been unusually conciliatory in his public statements. Here’s what he said on Wednesday:

“What we’ve had is unprecedented dialogue over the last year with our players, our owners, with community leaders and law enforcement. What we plan to do is have a very in-depth discussion with the players and owners next week to make sure we truly understand the issues and also understand the approach we want to take together with the players to address these issues in our communities.”

“What we want to do is get back to focusing on the actions that we want to take to really improve our communities and support our players to get things done…We want to get to from our current situation to where we are really making a difference in the community and get involved in action that is going to have a positive outcome for our law enforcement, for our communities, and for our country overall….

“I do think there’s a sense of urgency because we want to get in the communities and make a positive impact. It’s important for us to continue to work together. The urgency that we all feel is continuing the work that we are doing, keeping focused and having a positive outcome for our players, our communities, our teams, our fans and for the leaders in our communities.” (“Roger Goodell: ‘No policy change’ on national anthem”, nfl.com)

I’m not so gullible to think that Goodell’s promises are anything more than pleasant-sounding bromides designed to end the protests and get back to the business of making money. But it’s a heckuva lot better response than Jones or Trump’s.   And Goodell’s comments also show that Kaepernick’s efforts have had an impact. One man has made a difference. The conversation has shifted (in some quarters) from the players actions to police violence, broken communities and racial injustice. This is progress. It’s just one small step in the right direction, but it’s a start.


Theresa May’s Gamble With The ECJ – Analysis

0
0

By Theodoros Papadopoulos

Nearly seven months after Theresa May invoked Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, her ministers are waking up to security implications far beyond what they would like to admit. In both London and Dublin, critics are justifiably warning that “hard Brexit” from the European customs union could jeopardize the peace in Ireland – reopening a wound European integration has kept stitched up for two decades.

The debate over the Irish border is offering the UK a difficult lesson in how Brexit’s “purely” economic questions will bleed over into other areas of British foreign policy. After all, the UK and Ireland would only be re-imposing their border for customs purposes – but as former Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain told the House of Lords, Theresa May’s moves to gloss over that issue by proposing an “invisible border” are “delusional, contradictory, and potentially very damaging.” The lead MEP on Brexit, Guy Verhofstadt, has been even more blunt in writing off the invisible border idea as impossible.

For the rest of Europe, the befuddled British approach to its Irish border question is a warning not to take Theresa May’s vision of a far-reaching partnership “to protect Europe together from the threats we face in the world” seriously. If her government is so nonchalant towards the arrangement that ended decades of violence and terrorism across the British Isles, how can it be trusted to appreciate the stakes of other critical security questions?

Ireland isn’t the only example. All while admitting her country will have to continue respecting European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions during the upcoming “transition” period, May is sticking by her pledge to pull the UK out of the ECJ, which presides over vital institutions like Europol and the European Arrest Warrant.

May’s ministers compound that distrust with blithe unawareness of the stakes. Home Secretary Amber Rudd nonchalantly claimed last month that the UK was planning a treaty to keep it inside Europol after Brexit, even though the UK cannot remain a member of Europol or Eurojust (nor of the European Defense Agency) without ECJ jurisdiction. The only solution would be for London to renegotiate some kind of shared access to information and analysis as an outside observer.

At the rate Brexit negotiations are going, that means a dangerous gap in British and European protection from cross-border threats at a time when terror groups are perpetrating ever-more deadly attacks across both the UK and the Continent. It took decades of confidence-building and constitutional changes for European member states to gain unfettered access to criminal databases, not to mention the ability to arraign suspects in other EU countries.

Even that ability – embodied by the European Arrest Warrant – is in danger. Germany only allows the extradition of its citizens to other countries within the EU, meaning it would have to amend its constitution to allow extradition to the UK after Brexit. For any number of domestic political reasons, those changes could get held up or neglected, creating legal loopholes that impede Europe’s ability to prosecute criminals and terrorists.

The Centre for European Reform has presented three possible scenarios for future extradition arrangements, and all fall short of the current system. Option one would be signing 27 bilateral agreements – a solution so inefficient that it rules itself out. The second option is to revert to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, under which it took 18 months on average to complete an extradition request (compared to 15 days for uncontested cases now). The last option is a “seek and surrender” agreement that would work like the EAW, but would likely take years to negotiate. The EU’s side-deal with Norway and Iceland took five years to hammer out and a further eight to be ratified by all EU members.

As with other components of European security and law enforcement cooperation, Eurosceptics in Britain have long been glib about the EAW system. They see the mechanism as a stick with which to beat the EU, and those fighting extradition have been happy to tap into their fervor. One case in particular involves Romanian businessman Alexander Adamescu, whom Romanian anti-corruption services sought to extradite after he fled corruption charges and moved to England. Adamescu (with the help of his lawyers) portrayed himself as a playwright being pursued on political grounds, despite his business dealings leaving a trail of bankruptcies and shell companies from Bucharest to the Virgin Islands.

The irony of all this is that the UK is a net exporter of extradition cases. Thanks to the EAW, British authorities have shipped over 6,500 detainees out of the country while receiving just 800 in return. Even Amber Rudd recognizes the EAW’s importance, calling it “absolutely essential” the UK remain part of it. Where the EAW does have objective flaws, other EU member states (like Germany), have found quick fixes with measures like a “proportionality test” to ensure there is a legally sound basis for extraditions they authorize.

The tragedy of London’s dazed and confused approach to European security cooperation is that these institutions, helped by major British contributions, have finally been coming into their own. A Europol report found that its database – to which the UK will no longer have access after Brexit – saw a 60 percent rise in operational messages between 2000 and 2016. Furthermore, the Schengen Information system was consulted 2.9 billion times by field services in 2015 alone.

By throwing itself headfirst out of these joint efforts, the UK is merely compounding the wrongheaded approach nationalists like Nigel Farage advocated before last year’s referendum. It was Farage who stood before a racially charged image of migrants last year, claiming they were coming to British shores. At no point did he advocate increased assistance to the overworked, understaffed Frontex teams responsible for protecting Greek and Italian shores. As Northern Ireland now knows, not even those who masterminded Brexit know what “taking back control’ of British borders truly means – at least beyond undermining the security of all of Europe.

 

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.

What Is Behind Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation? – OpEd

0
0

Egypt’s enthusiasm to arbitrate between feuding Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, is not the outcome of a sudden awakening of conscience. Cairo has, in fact, played a destructive role in manipulating Palestinian division to its favor, while keeping the Rafah border crossing under lock and key.

However, the Egyptian leadership is clearly operating in coordination with Israel and the United States. While the language emanating from Tel Aviv and Washington is quite guarded regarding the ongoing talks between the two Palestinian parties, if read carefully, their political discourse is not entirely dismissive of the possibility of having Hamas join a unity government under Mahmoud Abbas’ direction.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments in early October validate this assertion. He did not categorically reject a Hamas-Fatah government, but demanded, according to the Times of Israel, that “any future Palestinian government must disband the terror organization’s (Hamas’) armed wing, sever all ties with Iran and recognize the State of Israel.”

Egyptian President, Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, too, would like to see a weaker Hamas, a marginalized Iran and an agreement that puts Egypt back at the center of Middle East diplomacy.

Under the auspices of the Egyptian dictator, Egypt’s once central role in the region’s affairs has faded into a marginal one.

But the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation is giving el-Sisi a window of opportunity to rebrand his country’s image which has, in recent years, been tarnished by brutal crackdowns on his country’s opposition and his miscalculated military interventions in Libya, Yemen and elsewhere.

In September, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly conference in New York, el-Sisi met Netanyahu publicly for the first time. The exact nature of their talks was never fully revealed, although media reports pointed that the Egyptian leader has attempted to sway Netanyahu into accepting a Hamas-Fatah unity deal.

In his speech at the UNGA, el-Sisi also made a passionate, impromptu appeal for peace. He spoke of an ‘opportunity’ that must be used to achieve the coveted Middle East peace agreement and called on US President Donald Trump to “write a new page of history of mankind” by taking advantage of that supposed opportunity.

It is difficult to imagine that el-Sisi, with limited influence and sway over Israel and the US, is capable of, single-handedly, creating the needed political environment for reconciliation between Palestinian factions.

Several such attempts have been tried, but failed in the past, most notably in 2011 and in 2014. As early as 2006, though, the George W. Bush Administration forbade any such reconciliation, using threats and withholding of funds to ensure Palestinians remained divided. The Barack Obama Administration followed suit, ensuring Gaza’s isolation and Palestinian division, while it also supported Israel’s policies in this regard.

Unlike previous administrations, Donald Trump has kept expectations regarding the brokering of a peace agreement low. However, from the outset, he took Israel’s side, promised to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and appointed a hardliner, David Friedman, a Zionist par-excellence, as US ambassador to Israel.

No doubt, last June, Trump signed a temporary order to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv, disappointing many of his pro-Israel fans, but the move is by no means an indication of a serious change of policies.

“I want to give that (a plan for peace) a shot before I even think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem,” Trump said in a televised interview recently. “If we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israel, I think it’ll lead to ultimate peace in the Middle East, which has to happen.”

Judging by historical precedents, it is quite obvious that Israel and the US have given a green light to Palestinian reconciliation with a clear objective in mind. For its part, Israel wants to see Hamas break away from Iran and abandon armed resistance, while the US wants to get ‘a shot’ at playing politics in the region, with Israeli interests being paramount to any outcome.

Egypt, being the recipient of generous US military aid, is the natural conduit to guide the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation component of the new strategy.

What strongly suggests that powerful players are behind the reconciliation efforts is how smooth the entire process has been so far, in complete contrast with years of failed efforts and repeated agreements with disappointing outcomes.

What primarily seemed like another futile round of talks hosted by Egypt, was soon followed by more: first, an initial understanding, followed by a Hamas agreement to dissolve its administrative committee that it formed to manage Gaza’s affairs; then, a successful visit by the National Consensus Government to Gaza and, finally, an endorsement of the terms of national reconciliation by the two most powerful Fatah bodies: The Fatah Revolutionary Council and the Central Committee.

Since Fatah controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), the latter endorsement advocated by Mahmoud Abbas was an important milestone needed to push the process forward, as both Hamas and Fatah readied themselves for more consequential talks in Cairo.

Unlike previous agreements, the current one will allow Hamas to actively participate in the new unity government. Top Hamas official, Salah Bardawil confirmed this in a statement. However, Bardawil also insisted that Hamas will not lay down its arms, and resistance to Israel is not negotiable.

US-Israel-Egyptian power play aside, this is, indeed, the crux of the matter. Understandably, Palestinians are keen to achieve national unity, but that unity must be predicated on principles that are far more important than the self-serving interests of political parties.

Moreover, speaking of – or even achieving – unity without addressing the travesties of the past, and without agreeing on a national liberation strategy for the future in which resistance is the foundation, the Hamas-Fatah unity government will prove as insignificant as all other governments, which operated with no real sovereignty and, at best, questionable popular mandates.

Worse still, if the unity is guided by tacit US support, an Israeli nod and an Egyptian self-serving agenda, one can expect that the outcome would be the furthest possible one from the true aspirations of the Palestinian people, who remain unimpressed by the imprudence of their leaders.

While Israel invested years in maintaining the Palestinian rift, Palestinian factions remained blinded by pitiful personal interests and worthless “control” over a militarily occupied land.

It should be made clear that any unity agreement that pays heed to the interest of factions at the expense of the collective good of the Palestinian people is a sham; even if it initially ‘succeeds’, in the long term it will fail, since Palestine is bigger than any individual, faction or a regional power seeking Israel’s validation and US handouts.

Iranians Take To Social Media To Criticize Trump’s Speech

0
0

(RFE/RL) — Many Iranians have taken to social media to criticize U.S. President Donald Trump for taking a harder line on the Islamic republic and refusing to certify the 2015 landmark nuclear agreement with Iran, which is believed to enjoy significant support in the country.

In his comments, Trump called Iran a “rogue” and “fanatical” regime and said that the country had failed to live up to the “spirit” of the nuclear deal, under which Iran agreed to limit its controversial nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Many Iranians expressed support for the deal and the removal of sanctions by taking to the streets when it was signed and celebrating.

Trump’s decision to decertify the deal and his outreach effort was met with anger.

“We hope that these new measures directed at the Iranian dictatorship will compel the government to reevaluate its pursuit of terror at the expense of its people,” Trump said in his speech while expressing solidarity with the Iranians.

“Trump’s outreach to Iranian public is a joke, Iranians know well how unreasonable and unfounded his policy to Iran is. They reject Trump,” women’s rights activist Sussan Tahmasebi tweeted.

“Trump’s comments were not only against Iran, they were against a diplomatic move to resolve a global issue,” said former Iranian lawmaker Jamileh Kadivar, who lives outside the country.

“The [nuclear deal] had brought us some peace of mind. This Trump’s move brings us concern. Why is playing with the future of our children,” wrote a woman on Facebook.

“Trump: #Iran blah blah blah… sorry I couldn’t derail this deal, dear Senators do this for me if you can,” tweeted Tehran-based journalist Sadegh Ghorbani, who works for hard-line news outlets.

Some were using hashtags that said #nevertrustUSA and #IranKeepspromises in their reactions to Trump’s speech, in which he announced his new Iran strategy that includes new sanctions against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

“The irony is that a country that has a record of attacking other countries and launching coups has a terrorist scale in hand,” Leila Samani tweeted.

“While the international community says Iran is abiding by the deal, the U.S. says otherwise. Never trust a bully,” Farid Sobhani tweeted.

“Trump says Iran’s government attacked the U.S. in a way as if it was Iran that destroyed a U.S. plane with 290 passengers,” a Twitter user said in a reference to the downing of an Iran Air flight that was shot down by the U.S. Navy in July 1988, killing all passengers on board.

However, some expressed support for Trump’s strategy.

“America should sanction Iranian [leaders] and whoever works with them,” a reader commented on the website of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda. “The Iranian regime does not have public support,” the reader added.

“Viva President Trump,” another reader said. “He sanctioned the IRGC, the murderers of hundreds of young Iranians, the number one enemy of freedom in Iran,” the reader added.

‘Arabian Gulf’

Many Iranians on social media were up in arms over Trump’s use of the term “Arabian Gulf” to refer to the body of water known historically as the Persian Gulf. Iranians insist that it be referred to as the Persian Gulf, taking Arabian Gulf as an insult.

“It always was Persian and it always stays Persian,” a tweet said with a map saying “Persian Gulf.”

“Someone teach @RealDonaldTrump geography lessons!,” another user said while adding: “It’s #PersianGulf.”

Iranian users took to Trump’s Instagram page to voice their protest. Around two hours after the post went online, it had received 400,000 comments, most of which regarding the Arabian/Persian Gulf issue.

Understanding India’s Response To Syrian Civil War – Analysis

0
0

By Ketan Mehta*

Syria has been in a state of civil war since the 2011 uprising known as the “Arab Spring.” Yet this civil war is no longer just an internal Syrian calamity; it has triggered sectarian tensions, geopolitical rivalries, and the global threat of Islamic extremism. Within the region, Syria has become a battleground for Saudi-backed rebel groups and Iran-backed Hezbollah. Other Gulf states such as Qatar, too, have used proxies to vie for influence in the Syrian civil war.

The internal conflict has incentivised Iran to reassert itself as a key player beyond the Persian Gulf and allowed Shia militia movements to rejuvenate and find new avenues for expansion. The extremist group IS (Islamic State), having extended its reach to South Asia[1]—home to the largest Muslim population in the world—is of concern to New Delhi, which has significant stakes in the South Asian realm. The threat is compounded by the fact that IS has started attracting Indian youth.

It is thus important to analyse India’s careful posturing in Syria, keeping in mind the highlighted facets linked to the conflict and its own stakes in the Middle East, which have influenced India’s decision-making. In the context of the Arab Spring, which posed a challenge to the authoritarian Assad regime, this brief argues that India’s tacit support for the regime is driven by two factors. The first is its fears of instability and the rise of Islamists as it happened in post-Gaddafi Libya. The second is its commitment to non-interventionism, a position shared by members of the BRICS countries that have refrained from acquiescing to a military intervention against the regime.

In addition to these factors, the Baath Party’s continued pro-India stance on the Kashmir issue pushes India to take a position on the Syrian crisis that seems to favour the Assad regime. Given that India has abstained from most UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Syria—and having supported one Arab League sponsored resolution[2] —it can be argued that the country’s position stems from a compulsion to be on the same side of the fence as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. After all, India’s ties with these countries are more elaborate. At the same time, by not acknowledging their explicit demand for a regime change, India has skilfully co-opted with the Assad regime in the crisis.[3] However, this feature of India’s foreign policy has not affected its ties with the regional powers in the Arab world, such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which have pursued divergent regional interests. So far, despite being the largest democracy seeking greater ties with the West, New Delhi has ignored calls for military intervention on humanitarian grounds.[4]

Indo-Syrian ties

India–Syria partnership is relatively nascent compared to India’s relations with Russia or Iran, who are vital partners of the Assad regime. India’s disinterest in a regime change continues, despite its comprehensive ties with the GCC countries, who have routinely intervened to evict Assad. GCC countries remain crucial in securing India’s primary interest in the region, i.e., energy security and remittances, unlike Syria, with which India’s trade has never touched the US$1-billion mark.[5] Moreover, at the moment, Syria is an insignificant source of oil for India.[6]

This suggests that New Delhi’s interests in the Middle Eastern states are not driven solely by its aim to achieve energy security. In the case of India–Syria bilateral relationships, the Global South cause appears to be a crucial moving factor along with Syria’s support to India on the Kashmir question.

Initially, Syria—the only Arab member in the UNSC in 1948—had supported Pakistan on the Kashmir cause[7] and had irked India by extending support to the Nizam of Hyderabad on the behest of the Egyptians. This resulted in New Delhi giving recognition to Israel in 1950, much to the dismay of the Arabs.[8] The basis of Indo-Syrian partnership emerged later with the ascendancy of the Non-Aligned Movement leader, Gamal Naseer, as the President of the United Arab Republic (UAR, a union of Syria and Egypt). Naseer, by maintaining strict neutrality over political issues, allowed relations to prosper despite Pakistan’s efforts to achieve Islamic solidarity on the Kashmir issue.

Thus, the Egyptian and Syrian alliance of the UAR (1958-1961),[9] consolidated Syria’s position on the issue of Kashmiri self-determination, which has been India’s Achilles heel in its relationship with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

However, the consolidation of power by the Assad family in 1971 pushed the regime to forge new partnerships beyond Middle East as a means to counter the regional isolation generated by Syria’s rivalry with Israel and the Gulf states. During this phase, New Delhi found it easier to work with Damascus, which resulted in Indo-Syrian cooperation on political issues that remains effective till date.[10] Therefore, the geopolitical rivalry in the region which created the space for Indian–Syrian bonhomie, allowed Delhi to recraft the Middle East policy, which, according to the then Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, had fallen victim to “vote bank” politics.[11] Thus, despite Syria not being a major power in the region, its support for India’s position on Kashmir is welcome, and India’s tacit approval of the regime is well understood as a quid pro quo.

Recently, the emergence of a consolidated viewpoint of groupings such as BRICS[12] and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa)[13] on the Syrian crisis has lent weight to the Indian opinion. Since the New Delhi summit held in 2012, BRICS states have routinely called for respecting Syria’s territorial and political sovereignty, thus obstructing the West’s and the GCC’s efforts to weaken the Assad regime.[14] Having lost recognition in major regional forums such as the Arab League[15] and the OIC,[16] the regime seeks to maintain credibility by imparting importance to forums like BRICS and IBSA. The Indian position therefore would have been less significant than what it is now with the emergence of the BRICS order.[17]

The Syrian regime that finds BRICS on its side has called for a greater role of the grouping in easing tensions. India’s soft approach which favours Assad despite not having comprehensive economic ties with Syria, has played out well, diplomatically.

India’s calculated response

Expecting significant deviation in India’s policy of tolerating the Assad regime is unwarranted, keeping in mind India’s past disapprovals of regime change in the Arab world. Despite conveying displeasure against a no-fly zone resolution on Libya,[18] New Delhi could not prevent the Gaddafi regime’s downfall. This proved to be a watershed as thereafter India—along with other BRICS states—would resolutely oppose the regime change narrative of the Global North, especially when its primary interests are intertwined with political stability in the region.

At the Geneva II peace conference in 2014, India’s perspective was reflected in the statement of then Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid: “India believes that societies cannot be re-ordered from outside and that people in all countries have the right to choose their own destiny and decide their own future. In line with this, India supports an all-inclusive Syrian-led process to chart out the future of Syria, its political structures and leadership.”[19]

Three inferences can be drawn from India’s current foreign policy in the context of the Syrian crisis. First, New Delhi prefers stability over instability, since it is confronted with the conundrum of “Who after Assad?” and “What role would the Islamist rebel faction play?” This fear is magnified by the fact that Islamic extremists are intending to find a new haven in Afghanistan, which happens to be pivotal for India’s interests in South Asia. Since IS has expanded its reach to Bangladesh and has found support in the volatile region of Kashmir, New Delhi’s concerns now seem extremely valid. In all, there is enough reason for scepticism and lack of confidence in the opposition’s ability to guide Syria, especially when the civil war has turned out to be less of a “people’s revolution” and more of a “proxy war” between regional rivals, each with their own geopolitical objectives.[20]

The second inference comes from the assertion that India shares a consolidated opinion with other BRICS states on the question of intervention. The BRICS states have questioned the UNSC’s authority to intervene on humanitarian grounds.[21] This comes from the finding that India, like other IBSA states, does not confer support to the strongest humanitarian positions.[22] However, it is evident that New Delhi supports the nations of the developing world in their contention with the West. In this case, it has relegated the question of regime change to its shared principle of non-interventionism, support for the Arab–Palestinian cause, and the secularism of the Syrian Baath Party.

Most importantly, it is India’s own domestic conundrum in Kashmir that shapes its response. Since the development of the issue in 1947, New Delhi has been interested in treating the dispute over the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir and its consequences unilaterally. As successive Indian governments believed that the resolution of the dispute was New Delhi’s own discretion, Kashmir became an international issue, particularly popular among the Islamists.

Being unable to draw the attention of the West, which shelved the Kashmir issue as they find India pivotal in balancing the South Asian realm, Pakistan courted the OIC in an effort to marginalise India within the Islamic world.[23]The vulnerability of being isolated by the Arab members of the OIC, incentivised New Delhi to focus on exploiting the faultlines in the Islamic community by strengthening ties with Syria. This was evident in the visit of Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar, who assured India’s tacit support to the regime in return for Assad’s acknowledgement of the Indian narrative on the Kashmir issue, in the background of growing pressure from the OIC.[24] New Delhi’s concerns are bound to increase, now that it has lost two vital allies—Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi—who seconded India’s Kashmir policy. Therefore, maintaining its ties with Damascus will remain a tool for Indian diplomacy.

Nevertheless, the Indian position that reflects confidence in the Assad regime cannot be as unequivocal as that of Russia. Despite the controversial role of the Gulf states, New Delhi’s compulsion to not be a known partner of the regime stems from its primary objective in the Middle East: to secure energy security and the well-being of its diaspora. This demands maintaining friendly ties with Riyadh and its partners.

Salman Khurshid’s statement at the Geneva II conference in 2014 addressed this concern: “India has important stakes in the Syrian conflict. It shares deep historical and civilisational bonds with the wider West Asia and the Gulf region. We have substantial interests in the fields of trade and investment, diaspora, remittances, energy and security. Any spillover from the Syrian conflict has the potential of impacting negatively on our larger interests.”[25]

In all, New Delhi’s opinion, has less to do with the Western bloc’s wishes but more with securing its trade and comprehensive ties with the GCC countries. The recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the UAE and Saudi Arabia[26] at this critical juncture suggests that the leadership is seeking to go beyond a relationship based on energy supplies, which till now had dominated India’s engagement with the GCC countries. India and UAE have conceived a strategic partnership at a time when New Delhi is seeking major investments in infrastructure from the latter.[27]

Currently, explicitly backing Tehran (a key ally of the Assad regime) where it is increasingly under the threat of sanctions by the new US administration, can jeopardise India’s important partnership with the Gulf. And, given the sectarian nature of the proxy war, in which Tehran is being condemned for its role in Yemen and Syria, there is little reason to discontinue New Delhi’s partnership with the GCC states, with which it has more comprehensive ties.

In conclusion, India’s position on the Syrian crisis is rooted in the aforementioned caveats of its foreign policy objectives, along with the necessity to maintain cordial relationships with the GCC member states. At the same time, realising the expectations of the Assad regime in return for its support to New Delhi’s position on the Kashmir crises, India has conveniently chosen to forgo the concerns of human rights groups. Supported by a consolidated BRICS position, it has been able to maintain its opinion against the influence of the GCC countries, helping to embolden the Baath rule.

*Ketan Mehta is a Research Intern at ORF.

Endnotes
[1] Dawood Azami, “The Islamic State in South and Central Asia,” Survival 58, no. 4 (2016): 131–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1207955.

[2] Eduard Jordaan, “Rising Powers and Human Rights: The India-Brazil South Africa Dialogue Forum at the UN Human Rights Council,” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 4 (2015): 463–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2014.988784.

[3] Harsh V. Pant, The International Politics of the Arab Spring (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 160.

[4] Pak K. Lee and Lai-Ha Chan, “China’s and India’s perspectives on military intervention: why Africa but not Syria?” Australian Journal of International Affairs 70, no. 2 (2016): 184, https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015.1121968.

[5] MEA portal, Foreign relations, Ministry of External Affairs, India, 11 January 2016, https://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/Syria_Jan_2016_english.pdf.

[6] TABLE, “India’s country wise crude oil imports since 2001–02,” Reuters, 6 August 2012, http://in.reuters.com/article/india-crude-import-idINL4E8IU4HI20120806.

[7] Security Council resolution 51 (1948), “Resolutions adopted and decisions taken by the Security council in 1948,” S/RES/51(1948), https://undocs.org/S/RES/51(1948).

[8] Saeeduddin Ahmed Dar, Pakistan’s relations with Egypt 1947–1971 (Karachi: Royal Book Co., 1993), 20–22.

[9] Juan Romero, “Arab Nationalism and the Arab Union of 1958,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 42, no. 2 (2015): 179–99, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2014.994317.

[10] Gautam Datt, “Syria on Kashmir issue: India has the right to solve it in any manner,” Mail Today, 26 August 2016, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/syria-india-jammu-kashmir-pakistan-terrorism/1/749088.html.

[11] C. Raja Mohan, “Look Middle East Policy,” The Indian Express, 2 June 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/look-middle-east-policy/.

[12] Pak K. Lee and Lai-Ha Chan, op. cit., 179–214.

[13] Eduard Jordaan, op. cit.

[14] Adriana Erthal Abdenur, “Rising Powers and International Security: the BRICS and the Syrian Conflict,” Rising Powers Quarterly 1, no. 1 (September 2016): 109–33.

[15] Ian Black, “Syria’s suspension from the Arab League leaves Assad isolated,” The Guardian, 14 November 2011, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/14/syria-suspension-arab-league-assad-isolated.

[16] Asma Alsharif, “Organization of Islamic Cooperation suspends Syria,” Reuters, 16 August 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-islamic-summit-idUSBRE87E19F20120816.

[17] Oliver Stuenkel, Post Western World (Cambridge: Polity, 2016), 16–17.

[18] Hardeep Singh Puri, Perilous Interventions (Noida: HarperCollins India, 2016), 90–103.

[19] External Affairs Minister’s Statement at the International Conference on Syria (Geneva-II), United Nations Office at Geneva, 22 January 2014, https://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/8CE868FD4915E995C1257C68004281AC/$file/India.pdf.

[20] Geraint Alun Hughes, “Syria and the perils of Proxy war,” Small Wars and Insurgencies 25, no. 3 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2014.913542, accessed 1 July 2014.

[21] M.M. Jaganathan and G. Kurtz, “Singing the Tune of Sovereignty? India and the Responsibility to Protect,” Conflict, Security & Development 14, no. 4 (2014): 461–87.

[22] Eduard Jordaan, op. cit., 477.

[23] Zafar Imam, “OIC and the Kashmir question: Options for India,” International Studies 39, no. 2 (26 July 2016), https://doi.org/10.1177/002088170203900205.

[24] Suhasini Haider, “In mission Kashmir, Akbar meets Assad,” The Hindu, 22 August 2016, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/In-Mission-Kashmir-Akbar-meets-Assad/article14583533.ece.

[25] Kabir Taneja, “India and the Syrian Civil War,” The Diplomat, 21 September 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/india-and-the-syrian-civil-war/.

[26] Harsh Pant, “Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia will help maintain balance of power,” The National, 30 March 2016, https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/modi-s-visit-to-saudi-arabia-will-help-maintain-balance-of-power-1.186354f.

[27] Mohammed Sinan Siyech, “The India–U.A.E. Strategic Partnership in Regional Context: A Zero-Sum Game?” Middle East Institute, 16 May 2017, http://www.mei.edu/content/map/india-uae-strategic-partnership.

Hamas Can Achieve Right To Work For Palestinians In Lebanon By Reconciling With Fatah And Iran – OpEd

0
0

Despite the 12/12/2017 announcement by rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah that a deal has been agreed to during this month’s Cairo Reconciliation talks and that details would be announced later, it is doubtful that substantive progress will result. Or that this time the results will differ much from the preceding half-dozen still-born ones over the past decade. When the talks achievements are enumerated they will likely yet again include only window-dressing with respect to the key issues of control of Hamas’ military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam or fixing a date for the holding of the crucial Palestinian elections. Previous announcements of a negotiated reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the last ones being in 2014, have always failed to materialize.

Neither side wants to be accused of torpedoing Palestinian reconciliation. Nor will either side give up significant power to the other. The parties may agree to a partial deal over such matters as control the Gaza Strip side of the border crossings, the future of Hamas’s civil service administrative workers, the Hamas controlled health service and who will control the south Gaza Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza.

However, despite the grim prospects, by ending the decade-old schism of strained relations with Fatah and reconciling also with Iran, Hamas has a historic opportunity to achieve elementary civil rights for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Toward reconciling with Fatah, Hamas has expressed willingness to disband its own administrative committee in charge of the Gaza Strip in favor of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) based in Ramallah and is considering ceding to the PNA the Gaza border crossings Israel and Egypt. While some Hamas leaders have maintained that the movement’s military force is not up for negotiation, some in Fatah insist on an end to all military manifestations outside the control of the PNA.

In addition, after half a dozen failed attempts, it now appears that all the concerned parties are finally supportive of Palestinian reconciliation including the various countries and their militias that continue destroying Syria and her people. Hamas is under heavy pressure to reconcile with Fatah given the escalating humanitarian crisis throughout the Gaza strip which has been intensified by the siege imposed by Egypt and Israel as well increasingly from Palestinian public opinion in Gaza calling for a better quality of life by lifting economic pressures.

Gaza based Hamas has a duty, as do all people of good will, to demand that Lebanon’s sectarian political bosses permit Palestinian refugees the right to work and thus to earn a living for their families. Fortunately, given recent events, Hamas now has a unique, even historic opportunity to achieve for their sisters and brothers elementary civil rights.

Hamas is currently in high demand from various interests and has an excellent opportunity to demand a human rights consideration of Iran, Hezbollah, Fatah, and Syria. One phone call from Tehran or Damascus to Hezbollah’s security zone in south Beirut can, after three decades of excuses, grant Palestinian refugees in Lebanon the most elementary civil rights enjoyed by every refugee on earth-even in occupied Palestine-but not in Lebanon.

Overdue Reconciliation

The concept may appear deceptively simplistic. But this observer who has had the opportunity to work on this fundamental human rights issue the past several years with the Beirut-Washington DC based Palestine Civil Rights Campaign (PCRC) is optimistic it may well be achieved via the following steps briefly discussed below.

For seven decades since the 1948 Nakba, the anti-Palestinian prejudices of a majority of Lebanon’s decision makers have blocked these rights in violation of numerous principles, standards, and rules of international humanitarian law. This has led to the damage of Lebanon’s economy, social fabric and loss of self and international respect. Some Palestinian leaders in Lebanon and regionally have also failed their people in Lebanon among other ways by refusing pleas from Lebanon’s 12 refugee camps to wage a street-based civil rights struggle to achieve elementary civil rights. Rights that even the occupiers of Palestine grant to those they continue to dominate.

Hamas and Iran Reconciliation as part of the Hamas-Fatah deal?

Sunni Hamas is willing to improve its relations with Shia Iran after a diplomatic gridlock caused by the Syrian crisis resulted in Iran cutting off aid to Hamas in 2012 with the exception of its 45,000 military wings, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Iran wants the al-Qassam Brigades, also known as the Hamas ‘Foreign Legion” to join its own 100,000 plus Shia Popular Mobilization Brigades (PMU which comprise a significant part of Iran’s own two-year-old regional “Foreign Legion.” Tehran promises to someday liberate Palestine but today wants Hamas to assist with other regional projects including more than one in the Gulf. Also in Tehran’s geopolitical sites is having Hamas’ use its future increased power in the PLO to marginalize Fatah and dominate the PLO. Suggesting among other things that Sunni and Shia can cooperate when it’s in their mutual interests and their religious differences are not manipulated for political purposes.

Hamas spokesperson Badran told the media last week that its relationship with Iran has a long history and, in fact, Hamas never cut ties with Iran. “It is true that for a while, we have seen some cooling in ties amid the situation in Syria, but we have no disagreements on the Palestinian question. Iran has always supported us and for the last two years we have been working on restoring our relations. We decided in Palestine that we would continue to strengthen our relations with Iran.” For us, it is important.”

With respect to Hamas spokesman Husam Badran’s comment last week that Hamas and Iran have no disagreements on the Palestinian Question he does not accurately represent the majority of Hamas members who according to a recent poll very much consider the achievement of the right to work and home ownership in Lebanon to be a pillar of the “Palestinian Question.” Meanwhile, Palestinians are appealing to Hamas that Iran needs to support giving Palestinians in Lebanon, where Iran has major control, elementary civil rights.

Palestinians in Lebanon can benefit from a Hamas deal with Iran

Iran’s commitment to the right to work for Palestinians in Lebanon waiting for the first opportunity to return to their country is overdue. The fact is that for more than three decades Iran has not acted on this elementary civil rights issue but rather has reportedly instructed Hezbollah to offer only “Resistance” words but nothing more substantive.

Hezbollah has complied. From time to time Hezbollah does admit during ‘privileged conversations’ that Palestinian civil rights in Lebanon is not part of its political agenda.

One reason is sectarian leverage but equally is instruction from Tehran based on the “Iran Model” for this region. One aspect of which is that Lebanon must remain broken and barring Sunni Palestinians in Lebanon from their civil rights helps advance Iranian interests and influence. Despite annual Al Quds and Ashoura Day rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon’s other sects, is well aware that it would require only 90 minutes of Lebanon’s Parliament time to enact the most elementary civil rights to work and home ownership that virtually every refugee on earth is granted by international humanitarian law. Except for Lebanon which is the sole UN member state out of 193 that has ignored its international obligations and also its multiple agreements with Washington when it accepts American aid. US law, including the 1960 Foreign Assistance Act and the 1976 US Arms Export Act require that Lebanon grant refugees their elementary civil rights without exception. These in addition to other US laws applicable to Lebanon’s receipt of foreign assistance require that Lebanon’s government implement these laws. Lebanon continues to flagrantly ignore these humanitarian requirements.

Hamas also patiently continues to negotiate with Iran which as noted below wants to restore full relations with Hamas for several reasons. Not least of which is Iran’s continuing loss of support among the Shia of Lebanon and more so among the Shia of Iraq. Iran apparently calculates that it needs Sunni Hamas to partially make up its perceived continuing shortfall in Shia manpower and support.

Hamas can offer Tehran during reconciliation talks an historic condition precedent to the restoration of full relations with Tehran. Hamas should request of Iran that that Hezbollah use its political power in Lebanon’s Parliament to quickly enact the elementary civil rights to work and home ownership. Hamas should propose a 6-month window to achieve this. Failure would severely jeopardize the coveted Hamas-Iran deal and would doubtless increase the growing animosity that Hezbollah is struggling with from a growing number of Palestinians and their supporter’s globally. Many realize that while playing the Palestinian card and talking the talk, Hezbollah to date Hezbollah has been one of the two main barriers to Palestinians refugees in Lebanon being able to achieve civil rights. Partially dictated from Iran in order to maintain its regional power template because there is fear that if a large number of Sunni’s, (read Palestinians) can enter the job market they will benefit not just economically but also politically.

Reconciliation doubts remain

This observer is not very optimistic that full ‘reconciliation’ will actually happen yet despite the recent public statements from Fatah and Hamas and Egypt’s committed mediation of the project. But that does not rule out Hamas employing the current political opportunities that this process offers for gaining Palestinians in Lebanon their three-quarter century overdue elementary civil rights in Lebanon.

The reasons for skepticism about a real Hamas-Fatah deal include more fundamental problems than those briefly noted above. Hamas’ perhaps too quick move back to the idea of reconciliation was a major reversal for Hamas and was partly dictated by the group’s fears of potential financial collapse and political marginalization following its main donor Qatar being hit with a diplomatic crisis from formerly key allies.

The Fatah-Hamas Palestinian conflict cannot accurately be reduced to being just a “power struggle,” because while it is one significant aspect of the problem there are more major barriers.

The essence of the Hamah-Fatah Palestinian conflict is that each party has different fundamentals and references, national program, priorities, concepts for the management of Palestine’s national framework and for a decade have not be able even to agree on something so vital and fundamental as a National Charter. All compounded by self-serving external forces including Israeli, Arab, regional, and international actors seeking their own benefits.

Nor have the parties ever been able to agree on essential fundaments or even on a definition of Palestine. Fatah, gave up approximately 80% of historic Palestine at Oslo, recognized the legitimacy of Israel and will accept a two-state solution. But Hamas and Jihad leaders refuse to relinquish any part of Palestine and refuse to recognize Israel.

Under the terms of the Oslo Accords Fatah agreed to major obligations concerning the “peace process”, among them being non-recourse to armed resistance, renunciation of violence, and the establishment of a Palestinian Authority (PA), which turned out to be under the hegemony of the Israeli occupation while being subsumed politically, economically and security-wise under Israeli-Western conditions powered by Washington.

As Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh of Beirut’s Zaytouna Centre has written recently, that following Oslo, Fatah had hoped that it would convert this autonomous PA administration to a fully sovereign Palestinian state in just a few years. However, after 24 years, they have found out that they have been managing an authority that serves the purposes of the occupation more than the aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

Hamas will not accept Fatah’s stance and plans that PLO leadership, executive work, security forces, and political relations are the sole responsibility of Fatah, while Hamas’ pursuit of resistance will mean a breach of Fatah-led authority’s commitments, and an obstacle to Fatah’s national political process that is committed to a two-state solution.

Consequently Fatah will surely work to dismantle and destroy Hamas’ resistance arguing for a monopoly of power, employing “one authority, one decision maker, one security.

Will Iran cooperate with Hamas in gaining civil rights for Palestinians in Lebanon?
Hamas spokesperson Badran told the media last week, “Our relationship with Iran has a long history and, in fact, we have never cut ties with Iran. It is true that for a while, we have seen some cooling in ties amid the situation in Syria, but we have no disagreements on the Palestinian question. Iran has always supported us and for the last two years we have been working on restoring our relations. We decided in Palestine that we would continue to strengthen our relations with Iran. For us, it is important.” Meanwhile, Palestinians are appealing to Hamas that Iran needs to support the Palestinians in Lebanon with the elementary civil right to work and home ownership in Lebanon where Iran has major political control.

With respect to Hamas spokesman Husam Badran’s comment last week that Hamas and Iran have no disagreements on the Palestinian Question he does not accurately represent the majority of Hamas members who according to a recent poll very much consider the achievement of the right to work and home ownership in Lebanon to be a pillar of the Palestinian Question. The fact is that for more than three decades Iran has not acted on this elementary civil rights issue but rather has instructed Hezbollah to offer only “Resistance” words but nothing more which it has done. From time to time Hezbollah does admit during ‘privileged conversations’ that Palestinian civil rights in Lebanon is not part of its political agenda. One reason is sectarian leverage but equally is Hezbollah’s instructions from Tehran based on the “Tehran Model” for this region.

One aspect of which is that Lebanon must remain broken and barring Sunni Palestinians in Lebanon from their civil rights helps advance Iranian interests and influence. Despite typical Al Quds and Ashoura Day rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon’s other sects is well aware that it would require only 90 minutes of Lebanon’s Parliament time to enact the most elementary civil rights to work and home ownership that virtually every refugee on earth is granted by international humanitarian law. Except for Lebanon which is the sole UN member state out of 193 that has ignored its international obligations and also its multiple agreements with Washington when it accepts American aid. US law, including the 1960 Foreign Assistance Act and the 1976 US Arms Export Act require that Lebanon grant refugees their elementary civil rights without exception. These in addition to other US laws applicable to Lebanon’s receipt of foreign assistance require that Lebanon’s government implement these laws. Lebanon continues to flagrantly ignore these humanitarian requirements.

Looking toward a decidedly unpredictable intermediate period in the Levant geopolitically/strategically, Hamas could achieve something seismic for her people that would impact the future of the region and would advance their Full Return to Palestine. Much of the local Palestinian leadership has failed badly to advance civil rights for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and must stand aside for the new generation of younger, bright, energetic, open-minded Palestinian camp dwellers in Lebanon to better their lives. The only thing holding them back is being barred for purely political reasons from the most elementary civil rights to work and home ownership outside the squalid 12 camps.

If Hamas takes a leading role and applies its political acumen in negotiating with those who can arrange 90 minutes of Lebanon’s Parliaments’ time to enact Palestinian civil rights, it will achieve historic and much needed opportunity for Lebanon’s Palestinians and usher in a shortened timetable for Full Return to Palestine.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images