In a rare challenging of Chinese commercial terms that underlie the country’s ambitious Belt and Road initiative, Pakistan and Nepal have withdrawn from two dam-building deals. The withdrawal coincides with mounting questions in Pakistan, a crown jewel in Chinese geo-strategic ambition, about what some see as a neo-colonial effort to extract the country’s resources.

The withdrawals and questioning call into question China’s economics-centred approach to geopolitics based on the long-standing win-win principle of Chinese policy, the notion that all parties benefit from Chinese investment and largesse.

Critics have charged that the principle boils down to China wins twice, a notion that is supported by Chinese plans for Pakistan’s agricultural sector; the extraction of Pakistani onyx, granite, and black gold marble; the disagreement over the dams; and the debt traps that forced countries like Sri Lanka to surrender control of key assets.

Pakistan and Nepal announced their withdrawals last week in separate statements. Pakistani Water and Power Development Authority chairman Muzammil Hussain charged that “Chinese conditions for financing the Diamer-Bhasha Dam were not doable and against our interests.” China and Pakistan were also at odds over ownership of the $14 billion, 4,500 megawatts (MW)-hydropower project on the Indus River in the country’s problematic region of Gilgit-Baltistan near disputed Kashmir.

Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister Kamal Thapa announced his government’s decision to scrap a US$2.5 billion deal with China’s Gezhouba Group to build a hydroelectric project on the Budhi Gandaki River in the west of the country two days before the Pakistani decision. With India’s National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) waiting in the wings and expectations that the incumbent, Nepali Congress (NC) will be returned to power in elections scheduled for November 26 and December 7, the project plays into Eurasia’s Great Game for regional influence.

The Diamer-Bhasha project was intended to be part of the Chine Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key node on the Belt and Road, that with planned investments into infrastructure, including the port of Gwadar in the volatile province of Balochistan; energy, telecommunications and information technology, of more than $50 billion, constitutes China’s largest financial commitment to any one country.

The Pakistani withdrawal takes on added significance because it was included in CPEC after the government had failed to secure funding from international institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) because of Indian objections that it was in disputed territory. The government has broken ground on the project five times in the past 15 years. Mr. Hussain said that the government now has a five-year funding plan for the project that would be completed in 2026.

Chinese analysts suggest that the Pakistani and Nepalese withdrawals could set a precedent.

“It will not be a big surprise if similar problems happen in China’s future overseas projects. And that would not change the big picture. There is a common misinterpretation internationally that the Belt and Road is something China would want to push forwards at all cost. But in fact, all projects are commercial so they have to be justifiable economically, and agreed mutually,” said Zhao Gancheng, a South Asia expert at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies.

China is likely to encounter greater resistance not only on its financial terms, but also regarding assessments of what economic benefit investment target countries can expect.

A State Bank of Pakistan study concluded that exports of marble to China, Pakistan’s foremost rough-hewn, freshly-excavated marble export market, and the re-export to Pakistan of Pakistani semi-processed marble was “hurting Pakistan’s marble industry to a significant extent.”

Pakistani marble exporter and retailer Shakil Khan told Asia Times that “the Chinese buyers go for the square slabs, while the local quarrymen tend to excavate oval-shaped blocks which reduce to smaller bits” and are only of interest to the local Pakistani handicrafts and tile market. The Chinese approach discriminates against mines with cracked marble.

“The Chinese pick only the rare and quality stuff like onyx, black gold marble and high-quality granite from the market. Local processing units don’t have the high-tech processing equipment here to treat these costly marble products,” added Zahid Shinwari, president of the Sarhad Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCI), in Peshawar.

The Pakistani marble industry’s experience strokes with the overall suggestion of the leaked long-term plan for CPEC that projects risks of economic domination, the creation of a surveillance state, and would allow China to shape Pakistan’s media landscape. It projected an approach that has already sparked popular resistance and setbacks in countries and regions such as Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Balochistan.

The plan envisioned Chinese state-owned companies leasing thousands of hectares of Pakistani agricultural land to set up “demonstration projects” in areas ranging from seed varieties to irrigation technology. The Chinese companies would be offered “free capital and loans” from various Chinese ministries as well as the China Development Bank.

Effectively turning Pakistan into a raw materials supplier rather than an added-value producer, a prerequisite for a sustainable textiles industry, the plan sees the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps in China’s troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, as the vehicle for the introduction of mechanization as well as new technologies in Pakistani livestock breeding, development of hybrid varieties, and precision irrigation. Added value would be produced in Xinjiang as part of China’s bid to quell ethnic unrest among the Uighur population.

The plan envisaged the Pakistani textile sector as a supplier of materials such as yarn and coarse cloth to textile manufacturers in Xinjiang. “China can make the most of the Pakistani market in cheap raw materials to develop the textiles & garments industry and help soak up surplus labour forces in (Xinjiang’s) Kashgar,” the plan said. Chinese companies would be offered preferential treatment regarding “land, tax, logistics and services” as well as “enterprise income tax, tariff reduction and exemption and sales tax rate” incentives.

Pakistan and Nepal’s withdrawal from the dam projects suggests that for China to secure economic dominance in Eurasia, it will have to ensure that win-win amounts to equitable terms and distribution of benefits among those that need the investment.

“China needs to nurture better understanding of its intentions and visions…to prevent unnecessary suspicions about its geopolitical ambition,” The Jakarta Post said earlier this year in an editorial that acknowledged that “we badly need the huge infrastructure spending that China is bringing.”

The United States said Thursday it welcomed the announcement from Saudi Arabia and the Saudi-led coalition that it is reopening Hudaydah port and Sanaa International Airport to allow the urgent flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Yemen.

According to a press statement from the White House, “Full and immediate implementation of the announced measures is a first step in ensuring that food, medicine, and fuel reach the Yemeni people and that the aid organizations on the frontlines of mitigating this humanitarian crisis are able to do their essential work.”

The White House said it looks forward to additional steps that will facilitate the unfettered flow of humanitarian and commercial goods from all ports of entry to the points of need.

“The magnitude of suffering in Yemen requires all parties to this conflict to focus on assistance to those in need. All sides must support a political process with facilitating humanitarian relief as the top priority,” the White House said in the press statement.

At the same time, the White House said it remains committed to supporting Saudi Arabia and all our Gulf partners against the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ aggression and blatant violations of international law.

“Backed by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Houthi rebels have used destabilizing missile systems to target Saudi Arabia—systems that were not present in Yemen before the conflict,” the White House statement read, adding, “The international community must take the necessary steps to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its repeated violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2216 and 2231 as the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps exploits the grave humanitarian crisis in Yemen to advance its regional ambitions.”

“Millions of Yemenis are currently enduring severe deprivation; the United States continues to believe that this devastating conflict, and the suffering it causes, must be brought to an end through political negotiations,” the White House statement concluded.

The US and Turkey have discussed “pending adjustments” to military support for Washington’s “partners” on the ground in Syria, and have agreed to join forces against “all forms” of terrorism, including the Kurdish PKK and Fetullah Gulen’s movement.

Washington and Ankara reaffirmed commitments to jointly fight not only Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), but “all terrorists organizations,” including the Kurdish PKK and Fetullah Gulen’s movement, the Turkish presidency said following Recep Erdogan’s phone conversation with Donald Trump Friday. The two leaders also “discussed recent developments in Syria, bilateral ties and a summit in Russia’s Sochi,” where President Vladimir Putin hosted Erdogan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani earlier this week, the statement added.

Earlier, Turkey’s foreign minister announced that Washington has also allegedly agreed to stop arming the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a Kurdish militia that serves as the backbone for the US-led Syrian Democratic Forces.

The White House, however, did not explicitly mention the issue of arming YPG in its statement following the phone conversation, but did say that Trump and Erdogan discussed “pending adjustments” to Washington’s military support for US-led forces on the ground in Syria. It also confirmed the two leaders “discussed combating terrorism in all its forms,” and to foster “regional stability.”

“President Trump also informed President Erdogan of pending adjustments to the military support provided to our partners on the ground in Syria, now that the battle of Raqqa is complete and we are progressing into a stabilization phase to ensure that ISIS cannot return. The leaders also discussed the purchase of military equipment from the United States,” the White House said.

Trump is determined about “bringing peace to the mess that I inherited in the Middle East,” he tweeted before the phone call. With such a heavy burden, the US president then told his Twitter followers that he is heading off “to play golf (quickly) with Tiger Woods and Dustin Johnson.”

Turkey has long argued that the US must stop funding and arming the Kurdish Units in Syria, emphasizing that YPG is a terrorist organization affiliated with its own homegrown Kurdish insurgent group, the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK).

“Our discomfort regarding the provision of weapons to the YPG was conveyed to Mr Trump once again… Trump very clearly said he had given instructions to not provide weapons to the YPG,” Mevlut Cavusoglu said in Ankara. “We welcome the promise of not providing weapons to the YPG, and want to see it implemented practically.”

Trump’s conversation with his Turkish counterpart comes two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the leaders of Iran and Turkey, trying to find a political solution to end the crisis in Syria, as the battle against terrorist groups enters its final stretch. Ankara and Tehran played crucial roles in negotiating the so-called “de-escalation zones” in Syria, and are actively involved in trying to attain a political settlement in the war-ravaged country.

“The presidents of Iran and Turkey supported the initiative to convene an all-Syrian forum-congress of the national dialogue in Syria. We agreed to hold this important event at the proper level and ensure the participation of representatives of different sectors of Syrian society,” Putin said after the talks in Sochi Wednesday.

Ahead of his engagement with Presidents Erdogan and Rouhani, Putin met with the Syrian President Bashar Assad Monday, as the Kremlin amplified its leading role in trying to negotiate a peace settlement in Syria. The future of Syria also dominated an hour-long phone call between the Russian and American presidents Tuesday.

In 2015, Russia sent its warplanes to help Damascus fight against terrorists and extremist Islamist forces trying to overthrow the Assad government. The operation prevented a collapse of the secular Syrian state, and paved the way for a political dialogue with opposition groups who see a future for Syria free from extremist ideology.

Lawmakers in Indonesia are currently revising an existing anti-terrorism law. The proposed legislation will give TNI, the Indonesian armed forces, a more direct role in combatting terrorism. This may pose a hurdle to continued military reform.

By Chaula Anindya*

Indonesian lawmakers are currently deliberating revisions to an existing anti-terrorism law which appears insufficient in facing the threat of Islamic State (IS). One of the main points debated in the terrorism bill is the role of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) in counterterrorism.

According to existing law, the TNI is only allowed to assist counterterrorism operations under the command of the Indonesian National Police (POLRI). The new bill allows for certain conditions under which the TNI may assume a more active role, rather than serving only as an Auxiliary Support Force (BOK).

Generals Back More Authority

The process of revising the anti-terrorism law has been underway for more than a year and the final draft is expected to be ready for a vote at year’s end. One of the points that has prolonged the discussion is the role of the TNI in counterterrorism. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo began advocating a more active role for TNI after a twin suicide bombing struck a bus terminal in Kampung Melayu, East Jakarta in May 2017. The attack killed three police officers.

A number of current and former military generals, many of whom serve in important posts in the government, have emphasised the importance of the TNI’s role in counterterrorism. The TNI commander, Gen. Gatot Nurmantyo, has argued forcefully that terrorism must not be treated as a crime but as a threat to state security. He asserted the impending danger of a “proxy war” where subversive foreign agents will infiltrate Indonesia in a variety of ways, including exploiting the threat of terrorism.

Defence Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu, a retired general, has further asserted that combatting terrorism should not be the exclusive purview of just one agency, as they will be insufficient to the task. This statement might suggest a rebuke of POLRI as they are at the forefront of counterterrorism measures in Indonesia.

TNI’s Direct Role in Counterterrorism?

Another retired general, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Wiranto argued that the TNI should be given a direct role and no longer work as BOK, playing a supporting function. He believed regulations pertaining to TNI involvement in counterterrorism operations should be simplified and made less burdensome so that when the need arises, appropriate forces can be deployed quickly and effectively.

As these generals hold important positions in the defence and security sectors, their opinions about the proper role of the TNI in counterterrorism carry significant weight. However, there is also a base of public support for their ideas.

According to a survey done by Kompas, a leading daily, 93% of respondents supported the TNI having some role in counterterrorism, while 38% supported the idea of TNI autonomy in combating terrorism. More than half or 55% percent of respondents believe the TNI should remain under the command of POLRI, although the number who support autonomy is still significant.

TNI’s Expanded Role: Inevitable?

A coalition of civil society groups has been strongly opposed to the TNI’s expanded involvement in counterterrorism for fear of human rights abuses and the potential erosion of civilian control of the military. Yet the legislation continues to march forward, with lawmakers confident that the new bill will soon be finalised.

The House’s committee chairman on the anti-terrorism bill, Muhammad Syafi’I, has ensured the public that despite this expansion of TNI authority, Indonesia is committed to the rule of law and that law enforcement will remain the responsibility of POLRI.

The revised legislation will first establish that the TNI is no longer limited to serving in a BOK or auxiliary capacity. The exact conditions under which and in what manner the TNI should be given a direct role in counterterrorism will be clarified after the bill is ratified using Peraturan Presiden (Presidential Regulation).

Jokowi will consult with the House of Representatives (DPR) on the terms before issuing the Regulation. This should grant him sufficient leeway to bypass their approval in the future should it be necessary to rapidly deploy the TNI in response to a terror attack.

Challenges Ahead

The main concern over the TNI’s expanded involvement is that it will hinder the ongoing process of military reform. Efforts to reform the military in Indonesia have stressed the division of duties and responsibilities between the TNI and POLRI.

Under this arrangement, the TNI’s main task has been to protect the nation from external threats while POLRI’s has been maintaining internal security and order. The TNI’s active role in counterterrorism could blur this dividing line and presage a return to the political culture of the New Order, when the military had an internal security role.

One potential benefit of the proposed new arrangement is that the Army (TNI AD), the most dominant service, could use its advantage in intelligence-gathering and guerrilla warfare to combat terrorism. However, this has the potential to further entrench the Army as the most dominant service and allow its territorial command structure – which many observers consider problematic – to remain untouched by reforms.

Indonesia is striving for a more balanced armed forces, and has laid out plans for key doctrines such as Minimum Essential Force (MEF) and Global Maritime Fulcrum (GMF) which would direct additional resources to both the Navy (TNI AL) and the Air Force (TNI AU). However, if the Army begins to play a more outsized role in monitoring and combatting terrorism, the defence budget allocation for TNI AD will likely increase at the expense of the other services.

Additionally, the territorial command structure – which mirrors the civilian structure of governance and creates opportunities for political transactions during local elections – has long been the target of military reform efforts. With an expanded role in internal security, the Army will likely be able to fend off these efforts by claiming the structure is necessary to combat terrorism.

Given all this, Indonesia must sustain its efforts toward military reform. TNI AL and TNI AU should continue receiving additional resources to raise their profiles and develop a balanced armed forces that can address threats from air, land and sea – especially considering the intensifying danger of transboundary terrorism. It is important that Indonesia remains wary of involving the TNI too much in the preservation of internal security, even in the interest of national security.

*Chaula Anindya is a Research Analyst with the Indonesia Programme S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. That quote is worth bearing in mind when assessing the chances of the latest United Nations peace plan for Libya.

Every autumn, along with the falling leaves, comes a new UN plan for ending Libya’s civil war, now into its fourth year.

Like the plans before it, the current version of the United Nations Support Mission for Libya has superficial attractions.

It proposes a new slimmed-down version of the government the UN itself installed in Tripoli two years ago, cutting the number of its presidency from nine members to three, one chosen from each of the country’s three regions.

The elected parliament in Tobruk voted yes to it this week, and there were encouraging signs from its rival, unelected, parliament, the State Council in Tripoli. Cue optimistic words from the new UN envoy, Ghassan Salame, to the United Nations Security Council – his boss – earlier this month about how the peace process is advancing.

But the reality is, it ain’t going to work.

And it ain’t going to work for the same reason that all the previous UN peace plans didn’t work.

The most obvious reason why it will not work is right there in the UN plan: The three-strong presidency needs to be agreed by a grand council of all Libya’s factions, expected to be called by the UN in February, which will also decide a date for new elections. But if all Libya’s factions could agree a way forward, there would never have been a civil war in the first place.

That is reality behind the superficial optimism that greeted the yes-vote to the new presidency by Tobruk – Libya’s only governing group that was actually elected.

The UN’s powerlessness was exposed two weeks ago, when Tobruk refused to let a UN plane, bringing western Libyan MPs to the parliament, was refused permission to land. The UN greeted this with a meek protest, and nothing more. Outside powers have other things to think about, and there was no Big Power heft to push Tobruk to change its mind.

The reality is that the country remains in political turmoil.

In the east, supporters of Tobruk’s army commander, Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar, have begun a petition for him to be declared Libyan President. This likely will not work and the Field Marshall himself knows it is not necessary. After his successful operations against Islamists, clearing them from Benghazi, Libya’s second city, he has a fair chance of walking it to victory if Libya held a Presidential election.

With Benghazi free, the city is shrugging off three years of battle. Flights and shipping are being transferred from Tobruk, at Libya’s eastern extremity, back to Benghazi. Oil is flowing from the Sirte Basin, where the country’s oil wealth is concentrated.

Tripoli, meanwhile, is undergoing more and more deportations: The militias who control the streets fight each other, kidnappings are endemic, and citizens are humiliated by having to line up for hours to withdraw paltry sums of money from state banks just to survive. All of which is an indictment on the Tripoli government which, despite UN backing, has failed to impose itself.

In other words, eastern Libya is humming, and will not bend its knee to any UN plan not to its liking.​​​ Outside powers are also disunited. France and Italy both had strategies, Italy backing the Tripoli rulers, France Tobruk. Russia has also signaled support for Tobruk, enjoying warm relations with Haftar, though formally all three states endorse the “UN process.”

The wild card is the United States. The Trump administration has kept its distance from Libya, with Trump himself declaring the US has “no interest” in the country.

That may be changing. This month Libya’s oil chief Mustafa Sanallah and, reportedly, a member of Haftar’s entourage, were both in Houston to meet Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. The location of the meetings was important: Tillerson is an oil man, the former chief executive of Exxon, and Houston is also the HQ of American oil companies who have a presence in eastern Libya. The companies are keen to see production get going again, and Haftar’s advisors are keen to remind them that, since capturing the Sirte Basin from assorted militias a year back, the general has allowed the oil to flow unlike the militias who held it to ransom.​

In the end, Libya’s war is likely to be settled by old fashioned great-powers moves, not the illusionary plans of the disrespected UN.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute and reprinted with permission.

“There can be no doubt about it, the ISIS of just two years ago was the most powerful, well-led, generously-armed and resource-efficient paramilitary force in modern history, having carved out for itself an empire between two sovereign states and devastating their armies in the process. However, this is no longer so. The days of the Islamic State consuming Syria like a cancer are over.” — The Defeat of ISIS, Andrew Illingworth, Almasdar News

Russia and its allies have expelled ISIS from its last urban stronghold in Syria. Now the Syrian coalition will turn its attention to the numerous hotspots around the country where al Qaida-linked groups have dug in waiting for the Syrian Army to make its final push.

On Monday, Lebanese media reported that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), joined by combat troops from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah, recaptured the city of Abu Kamal in Deir Ezzor province. The city was the last bastion for the terrorist group, ISIS, which, at one time, controlled a vast swathe of land stretching from northern Iraq to central Syria. Now the group has been chased from its last urban hideaway and scattered across the arid wastelands like a nomadic tribe wandering the dessert. Abu Kamal was ISIS’s “last stand”, the final chance to fend off the advancing loyalist forces and reverse the course of the war. But the three-pronged attack proved to be too much for the demoralized jihadists who fled the city northward or surrendered to Syrian troops on the perimeter. Thus, ISIS no longer occupies any of the major towns or cities that once comprised the emerging Wahhabi proto-state. The group has been soundly defeated, its leadership is in tatters and the star-crossed Caliphate has met its end.

What happens next in Syria is of critical importance. Although large parts of the country remain under the control of al-Qaida-linked groups and the other Sunni militias, Russian President Vladimir Putin believes the combat part of the war is nearing its end and wants to begin preparations for a political settlement. This view is shared by the entire Putin administration including Deputy Defense Minister Valery Gerasimov. On Monday, Gerasimov said:

“The active phase of the military operation in Syria is nearly over. Thanks to our joint efforts, terrorists are being wiped out in the Al-Bukamal area in eastern Syria and along the Syrian-Iraqi border. It will only be a matter of time before the other militant groups are completely eradicated which will allow us to move on to a post-conflict settlement.”

It’s worth noting, that the western media has entirely ignored the defeat of ISIS at Abu Kamal mainly because it was the Russian-led coalition that delivered the final blow. In the current climate in the US, any facts that fail to support the anti-Russia hysteria that has swept the country, are scrubbed from publication. So while the headlines at the New York Times should have read: “Russia Crushes ISIS in Syria”, they instead focused on the trivial details of the latest sex scandal.

Post-ISIS Meetings Begin

On Monday, Putin met with Bashar al Assad in the Russian resort city of Sochi to discuss the winding down of military operations and the next phase of the 7 year-long war. The Syrian President expressed his heartfelt gratitude to the man who, by any measure, saved Syria from a fate similar to that of Libya or Iraq.

“I have conveyed to Mr. Putin and to the Russian people, our gratitude for their efforts to save our country. In the name of the Syrian people, I greet you and thank you all, every Russian officer, fighter and pilot that took part in this war.”

Putin thinks the defeat of ISIS at Abu Kamal creates an opportunity for the warring parties to hash out their differences and reach an agreement that will put an end to the fighting. There’s no doubt that Assad will be asked to make concessions he wouldn’t otherwise make to satisfy the objectives of his Russian allies. But Putin does not want Syria to become his Vietnam, he has no intention of using the Russian airforce to recapture every square inch of sovereign Syrian territory. As he’s said from the very beginning, his plans involve the annihilation of the terrorist forces operating in the country; nothing more and nothing less. This is why the outcome at Abu Kamal is so important in shaping the agenda. ISIS has been vanquished and the enclaves where the other insurgent groups are currently located, will be part of a wide-ranging mop-up operation that will end the terrorist threat in Syria for good. Security will eventually be reestablished and the government will move on to the arduous task of rebuilding its decimated cities and infrastructure. But first a settlement must be reached.

Later in the week, Putin will meet with leaders from Iran, Turkey and (maybe) Saudi Arabia. The geopolitical interests of all the parties are vastly different but not necessarily irreconcilable. Turkey, for example, might agree to withdraw its troops from Northern Syria if they are given assurances by Putin that the Kurds will not be allowed to set up an independent state on Turkey’s southern border. The Kurds might also be willing to settle for something less than “full statehood” if they are allowed sufficient autonomy to operate as a culturally independent entity. The main problem is the United States and its Israeli-Saudi allies who still want to topple Assad, partition the country, and transform Syria into another US garrison state at the heart of the world’s largest energy reserves. The defeat of ISIS has not changed Washington’s strategic ambitions or its determination to occupy Syria even after the hostilities have ended.

Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis has already stated that the US will not leave Syria after ISIS is crushed. Here’s what Mattis said at a recent press briefing on November 13:

“We’re not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has cracked…We’re going to make sure we set the conditions for a diplomatic solution…We have to get the UN-brokered effort in Geneva to take this thing forward.”

When Mattis was asked to provide the legal justification for the ongoing US occupation of east Syria, he said: “You know, the UN said that ISIS — basically we can go after ISIS. And we’re there to take them out.”

The United Nations never approved US intervention in Syria, but that’s probably a moot point given Washington’s abysmal record of shrugging off international law. From the look of things, the US is planning to stay in Syria for a long time, and that’s going to dampen the prospects for peace. Check this out from NPR:

“A rising number of Syrians who fled are returning to their homes, with more than 600,000 going back in the first seven months of this year, according to the International Organization for Migration.
The U.N. migration agency says that number is comparable to the number of returns spanning the entire year in 2016.

The Syrian government has been stressing that people are coming home, NPR’s Ruth Sherlock reports, and state media have been posting photos and accounts of such returns…

Most of those going home – 84 percent — were displaced within Syria. “The next highest number of people … returned from Turkey, followed by Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq,” the IOM adds.” (U.N.: More Than 600,000 Syrians Have Returned Home In 2017″, NPR)

The fact that Syrian refugees are returning home in droves further underscores the positive impact Russia’s intervention has had on restoring security across the country. The Russian president and his generals have prevented another country in the Middle East from being senselessly ravaged and plunged into fratricidal warfare. But while Putin has achieved much of what he set out to do when he launched his campaign in September 2015, US proxies in the mostly-Kurdish SDF have seized nearly all the territory east of the Euphrates creating the de facto partition that Putin hoped to avoid. How can this situation be resolved without a clash between Washington and Moscow?

It can’t be. There can be no political settlement unless the US relinquishes control over Syrian territory and abandons its misguided project to redraw the map of the Middle East. But is that really going to happen?

It all depends on Donald Trump. If Trump really wants to end the conflict, then the Saudis and Israelis will probably comply. But if Trump is convinced that Syria is merely a skirmish in a much broader war with Iran, then he might opt to double-down by establishing bases east of the Euphrates while escalating tensions in other parts of the region. Is this what the recent flare-up in Saudi Arabia was all about? Did the Crown Prince collude with Trump’s people in detaining Saad Hariri? Is the administration trying to throw more gas on the ME fire hoping to shift the attention to Tehran?

It’s possible. Trump has never tried to conceal his hatred for Iran, but how far is he willing to take it? Is he willing to take the country to war? Here’s a clip from an article by Josh Rogin at the Washington Post which helps to illustrate how members of the media (and their think tank colleagues?) are using events in Syria to make their case against Iran. He says:

“…the Assad regime and Iran are preparing for the next phase of the long-running war, in which they will attempt to conquer the rest of the country. Whether Iran succeeds depends largely on whether the United States acknowledges and then counters that strategy.

Tehran is pouring thousands of fighters into newly acquired territories and building military bases. Although U.S.-supported forces hold territories east of the Euphrates River in Syria’s southeast, as well as along the borders of Israel and Jordan in the southwest, Iran has stated its intention to help Bashar al-Assad retake all of Syria….” (“The U.S. must prepare for Iran’s next move in Syria”, Washington Post)

Does Trump believe this nonsense? Iran has not “conquered Syria”. It was invited to help support the sovereign government in its fight against jihadist outsiders who destroyed the country and killed tens of thousands of its people. Rogin’s analysis is completely divorced from reality.

Here’s more from the same article:

“[A] task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from taking over what’s left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own promise to contain Iranian influence in the region.”

By “liberated Syria”, Rogin is presumably referring to the territory in east Syria that is currently occupied by US Special Forces and their Kurdish proxies. Here’s more:

“Most urgently . . . the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran’s pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria,”…. the Trump administration must increase its assistance to Sunni communities lucky enough to live outside Assad’s rule and help U.S.-supported local groups hold valuable territory in Syria’s southeast…” (WA Post)

Escalate the conflict? Is that what Rogin wants: More war? And, on what grounds?

On the basis that the enemies of the Syrian government must be given carte blanche in their battle for regime change. Isn’t that the gist of what he’s saying?

Rogin again;

“… the United States should work with regional allies to stop Iran from moving weapons and troops into Syria. That would require interdicting shipments by sea and ensuring that U.S.-supported forces control key border towns in Syria and Iraq. Such moves could check Iranian aggression without triggering armed conflict with Tehran.” (“The U.S. must prepare for Iran’s next move in Syria”, Washington Post)

Rogin’s analysis reads like a science fiction novel. He wants the United States to engage in clearly illegal acts of piracy to prevent a sovereign government from assisting a neighbor in its fight against foreign terrorists. He also wants Trump to block critical land-routes that connect Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran, effectively imposing a military cordon around the country. Rogin thinks the US has the right to arbitrarily decide these matters without United Nations approval.

This is lunacy, and yet, this is the neocon rationale for expanding the war beyond Syria’s borders. More than anything, the neocons want to drag the United States into a war with Iran. That is their Number 1 priority.

But what about Trump? What does Trump want? Does he want to be the “exalted” leader who plunges the country into another bloody world war or does he want to implement the non-interventionist policies he supported during his campaign?

Which is it?

By Malek Awny

At least 235 people were killed and 109 injured in a terrorist attack on a mosque in North Sinai, which Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi vowed to respond to with “brute force.”

The Egyptian Air Force targeted the vehicles of the attackers during their escape and killed at least 15 armed men suspected of carrying out the assault.

In the deadliest terrorist attack in Egypt’s modern history, terrorists targeted worshippers during their Friday prayers at Al-Rawdah mosque in Bir Al-Abed, about 40 kilometers from Al-Arish city in North Sinai. Militants set off a bomb and opened fire on worshippers inside the mosque and those trying to escape. The terrorists then escaped using 4WD cars.

El-Sisi said that the attack would only strengthen the resolve of the Egyptian people.
He said in a televised speech after a meeting of the special security committee, which included the defense minister and the head of the general security service, that “the armed forces and the police will avenge our martyrs and restore security and stability with utmost force in the very near future.” He added: “We will respond to this act by brute force to face this extremist group.”

Reuters said that the worshippers were supporters of the government, quoting what it called a security source and an eyewitness. Hussam Al-Rifai, Egyptian MP from Al-Arish area, said that the majority of the victims of the attack were from the Sawarka tribe and the attack was revenge for the tribe’s support of the Egyptian armed forces and the police against terrorism. The mosque follows a Sufi order called “Jaririyeh.”
Al-Sawark tribe issued a statement last May announcing that it was joining Al-Tarabin tribe in fighting Daesh in Sinai.

The statement said that the tribe “believes that ‘Daesh in Sinai’ is a cancerous extension of the parent Daesh in the region, and that it is a link in the chain of the wider project that aims to destroy the homelands and divide the region into smaller states in which people scramble and brothers fight each other.”

“We have agreed to enter a direct military confrontation with the terrorist gangs in Sinai (…) under the umbrella of the state and in coordination with the valiant armed forces, and in partnership with our brothers from other tribes.”

El-Sisi said: “What is happening in Sinai is a response against true efforts made against terrorism, which we are fighting alone. Egypt is facing terrorism on behalf of the region and the whole world.”

He said that the attack on Al-Rawdah mosque comes in the context of “an attempt to destroy our resolve and stop our efforts to stop the terrible criminal plan which aims to destroy what is left of the region.”

El-Sisi said that he wanted Egyptians “to be sure and confident that the battle we are fighting is the most honorable battle,” and expressed his confidence that God would grant victory to Egypt in its fight against “the evil people.”

Mai Mujib, professor of political science at Cairo University, said: “Yesterday’s (terrorist) operation cannot be separated from the successes achieved by the Egyptian security forces against infiltration attempts into Egypt in the recent past.”

Mujib pointed to the success of the Egyptian Air Force in killing terrorists who had tried to enter Egypt from Libya in the past few weeks, and the dismantling of many Muslim Brotherhood terrorist cells, the last of which happened in Beheira governorate in the northern part of Egypt.

Mohammed Juma, an expert at the Arab and Regional studies Unit at Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, believes that it is more likely the attack was carried out by Daesh group, because there are no terrorist organizations in Egypt which hold views allowing the targeting of such a place with an intensive civilian presence except Daesh.

Bir Al-Abed area has witnessed many terrorist attacks in the past few months, including a similar attack on Sept. 11 against a security convoy, which killed 18 Egyptian security personnel. A suicide bomber driving a car targeted a security convoy, which was followed by an attack by terrorists using grenades and guns, and riding motorcycles and 4WD cars coming from the the desert alongside the “international highway” in the area. At that time, the Sinai Province militant group took responsibility for the attack, condemning what it called the agreements between the Egyptian intelligence service and the leadership of Hamas.

The village of Sbeikah near Bir Al-Abed witnessed another attack, which killed four members of the police force on Aug. 9.

Juma refused to link yesterday’s attack to new developments regarding the Egyptian reconciliation arrangements between the two Palestinian movements Fatah and Hamas.

“The reconciliation efforts are not fast or easy enough to represent an immediate danger at the moment for the terror groups close to Daesh in Gaza,” he said. “Moreover, operations targeting civilians and civilian institutions by Daesh elements in northern Sinai had been increasing before the announcement about Egypt’s efforts on the Palestinian reconciliation path. And Christians in Al-Arish suffered from attacks aimed at pushing them out of their homes in January and February 2017.”

Juma believes that the attack may have many aims, but comes in the context of moving the operations of the Sinai Province Group toward the areas to the west of the “Rafah-Arish-Sheikh Zuweid” triangle, “which witnessed a big increase in the size of the security presence and operations against the terrorist group, making it more difficult for the terrorists to move easily and carry out operations effectively.”

Mujib said: “The security successes in Rafah area forced the terrorist group to take an important part of its operations to the west,” noting that this move reveals that the group has other logistical and supply paths on top of the border with Gaza Strip, which was targeted heavily in recent times.

Mujib said: “The attack against a mosque reveals a shift in the nature of the places which could be targeted by the organization,” noting that “this means that the organization adopts more hard-line religious views which allows the targeting of civilians and even Islamic places of worship.”

Juma said that “targeting civilians and places of worship in such a huge way reflects the effects of Daesh in Syria and Iraq on the Sinai terror group, which makes it in a state of hostility with everyone. A possible cause is the influx of Daesh elements coming from Syria and Iraq to Sinai.”

Juma added: “Yesterday’s attack was an attempt to find an easy target to cause big losses, and the terrorist group managed to use the attack as a propaganda for itself among extremist elements, especially with the rise of signs for a new confrontation between Sinai Province group and some Al-Qaeda groups which are retrying to strengthen their presence in Egypt.”

Jund Al-Islam group, which is part of Al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for an operation on Oct. 11 against the Sinai Province group. Jund Al-Islam posted an audio recording on the Internet on Nov. 11 announcing that it “Targeted (Omar) Al-Baghdadi’s khawarij (outsiders) on Oct. 11 because of their continuous aggressions against Muslims in Sinai, their blockade of Gaza Strip, and their betrayal of their brothers in the group.”

Jund Al-Islam asked members of Daesh to repent and defect from Al-Baghdadi’s organization, which “divided Muslims,” and brutalized their Muslim brothers without any religious proof.

Jund Al-Islam threatened Daesh that it would eradicate their presence in Sinai if they “did not stop their actions and wrongdoings.”

It is a tall order for a small group of people, yet they are determined to lobby for a pluralist and democratic future for Lebanon.

By Anchal Vohra

The high drama surrounding the disappearance of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his resignation is finally over. On Tuesday night, minutes before the independence day on 22 November, Saad Hariri returned home and put his resignation on hold.

Hariri’s supporters celebrated and the rest heaved a sigh of relief noting an immediate threat of war had been averted. The crises in Lebanon though has at best been contained, not resolved.

But before his surprise surfacing in Paris, there were interesting developments and high tensions. In Beirut’s streets, posters were hung on pillars Hariri peeping out of them, with the words Hashtag Kulna Maek (We are with you). It is not clear who put up the posters and if the tagline is in support of Hariri or an attempt to mock the Saudi meddling in the regional politics.

“He looks like he is about to cry. Doesn’t he?” asks Joseph, a taxi driver. Joseph thinks the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the KSA held Hariri captive against his will and the look in the posters depicts Hariri’s helplessness. For once, the Lebanese seem united. Cutting across sects and religions, Joseph’s view is resonating in Lebanon.

“There is a foreign axis running this country, politicians are run by Saudis or Iran and that has to change” says Joseph, seeming flustered with the political dynamic in the country.

In the consociationalism system of governance in Lebanon, the highest offices are proportionately reserved for representatives of certain religious communities. The position of a President goes to a Christian, the Speaker must be a Shia and the Prime Minister a Sunni. Saudis support the Sunni leadership, while Iran backs Shia Hizbollah. The struggle for pre-eminence between the two Islamic powers plays out in Lebanon and hinders it from being pluralist.

Hizbollah: Small state’s powerful militia 

Over the last decade of wars in the region, Iran has amplified its influence in Syria and Iraq with help to and from the Hizbollah. A political party and a militia group, the Hizbollah have gained much war experience and enhanced their abilities to take on the enemies.

During the same course of events, the ideology and the men of the kingdom have lost out. Saudi intervention in Yemen — including its latest move to block the ports which are a life line for the war ravaged nation — has been globally condemned. In Syria, the groups supported by Saudi Arabia have lost all credibility and ended up tarnishing the reputation of the initially moderate and democratically minded protestors.

Feeling belittled at Iran’s stupendous rise and the growth of Hizbollah into a formidable force has the Saudis scrambling for ideas. Hariri’s resignation is a part of that episode while Hizbollah’s spin doctors have alternative theories.

According to Mohd Obeid, former director general of the Ministry of Information in Lebanon and a Hizbollah insider, Hariri was ‘made’ to resign for two reasons.

“Hariri was kept in Riyadh because he is close to Late King Abdullah’s son,” says Obeid. Late King Abdullah’s son, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, is one of the 11 royals arrested in the purge. His cousin Mohd bin Salman or MbS is the new crown prince and he ordered the purge to consolidate power under him ostensibly to curb corruption. According to Mr. Obeid, Hariri’s loyalties would lie with King Abdullah’s son Prince Miteb and not MbS because of his father Rafiq Hariri’s close ties with King Abdullah. The former king helped end the 16-year long civil war in Lebanon through ‘Tiaf agreement’ which was negotiated in the city of Taif in the Saudi Kingdom.

“Hariri is thick with Prince Miteb Bin Abdullah, he could have sided with him on the question of succession in the future and Prince Salman didn’t want that,” argues Obeid.

Authorised by a tight lipped Hizbollah to speak, Obeid summarised the external foreign policy goals the kingdom intended on achieving by Hariri’s resignation. He says the Saudis were thinking the pressure on Iran and Hizbollah for the sake of stability in Lebanon would mean their support to Houthi rebels in Yemen would stop.

“I can’t say what will happen in Yemen but in Lebanon, back door diplomacy with France will ensure Hariri’s return,” he says with some relief.

Mohd Obeid’s claim came true as Hariri’s personal jet landed in Beirut on Tuesday night.

Backed by the efforts of Egypt, a country close to Saudi Arabia, France played an instrumental role in convincing Riyadh to let go of the Lebanese PM. Emmanual Macron’s surprise visit to the kingdom and an invite to Hariri to visit Paris, first led to speculation that the former colonial power was offering exile to Hariri but Macron denied the reports. The plan was weaved by the Christian President of Lebanon Michael Aoun who is an ally of the Hizbollah and close to France. Sources in the Lebanese government say, Macron whispered in the ears of the Saudi monarchy the decision to keep Hariri in Riyadh had backfired.

Instead of weakening the Hizbollah, the Saudi manoeuvre made them look good. Hizbollah’s chief Nasrallah carefully weighed his words as he appealed for calm and warned against being incited to commit violence.

Fragile stability

Elias Farhat, a retired general with the Lebanese army and a political commentator, has a different perspective on the Hariri saga. He feels Hariri has become a sorry figure and predicts Saudi misadventure will lead to electoral dividends for his party in the upcoming polls in May next year. The last parliamentary elections were held as far back as 2009.

“His party was doing badly but now to maintain order, the political adversaries are likely to give him an easy ride in the elections,” says General Farhat.

It is hard to predict a growth or a dent in Hariri’s electoral fortunes at the moment. As a representative of the Sunnis in the parliament and the son of the popular former PM Rafiq Hariri, Saad Hariri does command loyalty of the voters in his sect especially at a time the Sunnis are apprehensive of the consequences of an unprecedented rise in Hizbollah’s stature.

In Tripoli in north Lebanon, Hariri’s gloomy posters disappear and give way to homes painted in white and blue which are the colours of Hariri’s political party. It is an evident display of allegiance in a city which has seen recurring riots between the Sunnis of Bab al Tabbaneh and the Alawites of Jabal Mohsin.

At the demarcation line between the two neighbourhoods, Lebanese soldiers stand guard, and an NGO has opened a peace cafe. Men of both sects, some who even fought each other in the riots, collect here to reconcile. There is an effort by both to mend fences but the tension, abetted by the short sightedness of the politicians, is palpable.

The founder of the cafe, Lea Baroudi, points to the fragile sectarian balance and talks about the repercussions of an active Saudi-Iran conflict on the ground.

“There is change since the last riots in 2013, but sectarian divisions are still there and these are kept alive by the regional powers,” she says. “We are in a delicate situation.”

The fear gripping the Lebanese is that the proxy war may push Lebanon off the cliff. The history of a bloody civil war and sectarian killings has had the Lebanese on the edge. In such circumstances, most Lebanese end up voting on sectarian lines.

The Lebanese civil society has been working tirelessly to change the nature of politics in Lebanon. One such group of the citizens is called “Massiret Watan” (Journey for a nation).

A bunch of 12 professionals started a 52-day and 600-kilometre march along Lebanon’s four borders. Inquiring about the issues faced by the people in different parts, the group also distributed hundreds of copies of the Lebanese constitution. They are hoping to cause awareness about the need of a pluralist Lebanon so the citizens vote for deserving candidates and not the puppets of regional powers.

One of the organisers of “Massiret Watan”, Maya Souhaid is a corporate lawyer. Lately she has been busy preparing for an argument in peoples courts. Maya needs to make a case for opting for candidates on the basis of their ideas and abilities and not sectarian affiliations at the Tripoli chambers of commerce.

“There is a garbage crisis in Lebanon. We don’t get electricity and rely on generators. The rivers are badly polluted. These are our issues,” Maya says of the problems crippling Lebanon. Disappointed with the current state of affairs, she adds, “Still the voting is done on the basis of whether you are a Shia or Sunni.”

It is a tall order for a small group of people, yet they are determined to lobby for a pluralist and democratic future for Lebanon.

Maya feels there is hope and brings up the curious example of municipal elections in Beirut in 2016 when volunteers seeking change formed a political campaign called ‘Beirut Madinati” and fought the municipal elections in the capital. The system failed to include the voice of 40% votes cast in their favour but since the law has changed and allows for proportional representation, which says Maya, “enables us to have candidates who will work on the real issues.” “It may not be 100% but even 40% would be a start,” she adds.

Lebanon has turned into a back yard of Saudi Arabia and Iran’s quest for dominance in the region. The Lebanese civil society is working towards securing Lebanon’s future as an independent and pluralist state but is unable to make much headway. It feels crippled by the sect and religion based politics which is funded by Tehran and Riyadh fighting their battle in Lebanon.

For now, a full-fledged war has been averted by Hariri’s return but in statecraft, the Saudis lost out to Iran and its proxy. Hizbollah upped its game by advising calm after what was clearly a Saudi provocation and came of age displaying rare wisdom.

Hizbollah has won, but if they don’t make concessions for enemy Saudis, war can’t be resisted for too long.

By Frank Kane*

What are the differences between a “shakedown,” a “plea bargain,” and a “deferred prosecution agreement”?

After consulting several dictionaries and talking to a few lawyers, I came to the conclusion it is largely a question of degree, sophistication and origination, and they are all pretty similar in practice.

A shakedown is US slang for demanding money with menace, and is obviously unacceptable and illegal, with shades of the gangster Al Capone: “Give me the money or I’ll break your arm.”

A plea bargain is a legal process by which a person accused of a crime agrees with the law to accept his or her guilt on a lesser charge, in the expectation that more serious offenses will be overlooked when it comes to sentencing.

There is a degree of menace there too. “If you don’t agree to this, you’ll spend a long time in prison.” That’s menacing enough.

A deferred prosecution agreement is rather more nuanced. The practice has become commonplace in the US and elsewhere, when big financial institutions came under the legal spotlight as never before. But a bit of background is necessary to fully understand it.

It may be true that very few individual bankers took any responsibility for their negligence in the run-up to 2009, when they led the world to the brink of economic collapse. But their banks, as institutions, certainly have.

They — JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse being the most prominent — have paid an estimated $60 billion to US and other authorities to make up for the mis-selling of toxic mortgage-backed securities.

Others handed over tens of billions for a variety of crimes including money laundering, sanctions busting, narcotics funding and interest rate and forex fraud.

Executives at these institutions did not just wake up one morning, realize they had done wrong, and make the decision to hand over billions of their shareholders’ money in atonement and repentance.

What happened was that the banking and legal authorities let them know that they had been rumbled, there was evidence against them of serious crime, and asked them would they like to come to discuss the matter — in a friendly way, of course.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) led the way in this technique.

They had the evidence, they could use it in court to impose huge fines and even prison sentences on banking executives, but if the “accused” (never formally) would agree to pay a multibillion-dollar fine and agree to be monitored to ensure illegalities did not recur, that would be more or less the end of the matter.

“Pay back the money, say you’re sorry, by paying a bit more, and don’t forget we’re watching you in future,” was the DoJ message. There is a subtle degree of menace there too. And it is, more or less, the same formula that is being adopted in the anti-corruption campaign launched a couple of weeks ago in Saudi Arabia.

One lawyer said that the detained culprits are being asked to agree to a statement along these lines: “My misconduct, combined with others, hurt the Saudi economy and threatened the livelihood and well-being of Saudi citizens. My payment of ‘x’ billion dollars will resolve claims against me and my corporation, but I agree to cooperate with the Saudi authorities in any further investigation into misconduct. I also agree to a period of oversight and supervision of my business activities until such time as the Kingdom sees fit to release me from this obligation. I am sorry for my past misconduct.”
(This is actually a broad paraphrase of the Department of Justice’s statement on its $7.2 billion settlement with Deutsche Bank earlier this year, the biggest of the penalties under the deferred prosecution agreement procedure imposed by the US authorities for selling “toxic” mortgages and other offenses).

So, rather than being a “shakedown” along Chicago gangster lines, the techniques being used by the Saudi anti-corruption drive are the Kingdom’s version of a widely accepted and sophisticated legal process which has the blessing of the US legal system and which has won many billions of dollars back from self-confessed offenders.

No less than the misconduct which brought the world to the brink of financial meltdown in 2009, the effects of corruption on an economy and society at large can be disastrous.

The Saudi government estimates that corruption costs the national economy as much as 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) per year; that hundreds of billions of dollars could be recovered in the course of the anti-graft drive; and that the measures will stop the flight of Saudi capital from the Kingdom.

The broader message — aimed at the public sector as much as the traditional private sector — is that the authorities will not tolerate corruption in the new Saudi Arabia being shaped under Vision 2030, in which graft, bribery and backhand deals will be a thing of the past.

So, it’s not a shakedown at all — but it is a very big shake-up.

• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai. He can be reached on Twitter @frankkanedubai

By Nada Hameed

Jeddah foodies are having their appetites whetted at the second edition of Italian Cuisine Week from Nov. 22-26. It is an opportunity for Saudis to learn about authentic Italian food beyond familiar dishes such as pizza and spaghetti.

It has been organized by the Consulate General of Italy, and sponsored by elite Italian restaurants in Jeddah and many well-known food brands, hotels and entities, including Manuel Supermarket.

Guests can taste modern dishes, buy authentic regional products and learn more about Italian culture.

Last year, the Consulate General of Italy hosted Chef Marco Martini from Rome, owner of The Corner restaurant, and in 2013 named the best emerging chef in Italy.

This year, Eleonora Galasso, a well-known social media figure in Italy, is the guest of honor. She appeared on a cooking show and is participating in the week’s activities.

“I’m not a chef, I call myself a food interpreter, because food is a language, and like any other language it needs to be decoded,” she told Arab News.

“I love to search for long-lost recipes and revive them in a new shape, but in a traditional form.”

Her book “As the Romans Do: Classic and Reinvented Recipes from Rome” is a showcase of her identity and authentic cooking.

“It’s a journey that gives you a view of the whole day, from breakfast until the aperitivo with dinner, which is a beverage consumed before a meal to stimulate the appetite,” Galasso said.

“I like to travel, and I must say that Saudi Arabia has a wonderful sense of hospitality,” she added.

“We share the same values and ethics in terms of appreciating families and being together. It’s very easy to find common ground, and I felt very welcomed here,” she said.

“It has been a great honor for me to represent my country in Italian Cuisine Week, which has been a fascinating adventure that I hope is just the beginning of a new conversation that our two countries can have together.”

As part of Italian Cuisine Week, there were two special events on Wednesday: A cooking show and an Italian movie night.

The show took place at Aromi Restaurant in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, where the audience enjoyed a light meal while Galasso displayed easy-to-make Italian recipes.

The pop-up cinema combined Italian movies and gastronomy at Assila Hotel on Prince Mohammed bin Abdul Aziz Street.

There was a lively discussion between the chef and the audience about the movie that was shown.

Italian Consul General Elisabetta Martini told Arab News: “I’m very glad that our occasion achieved a huge response.”

She said: “Our event last year was also a great success, and had a wonderful response from young Jeddawis and many people who are interested in the business of food.”

Martini added: “Italian Cuisine Week was started by the foreign minister after our Expo 2015 in Milan. It’s dedicated to food, and we decided that we could promote the Italian food sector, from the ingredients to chefs, restaurants, hotels and importers.”

She said: “Promoting food means promoting products, but before that, of course, is promoting our culture.”

The Hague Tribunal delivers its verdict on six Bosnian Croat ex-officials next week – but the trial has already revealed how Croatia funded the self-proclaimed Herzeg-Bosnia statelet’s forces while they fought the Bosnian Army.

By Sven Milekic

On November 15, 1993, Croatia’s Defence Minister Gojko Susak wrote to his ministry’s financial department, telling it to send money to send to the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia, an unrecognised self-proclaimed Croat statelet in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“I command the granting of a loan to the Croatian Defence Council [HVO] HZ HB [Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia] Mostar Defence Department in the amount of 11,713,616,450 HRD [Croatian dinars] from the Republic of Croatia Ministry of Defence funds,” Susak declared.

“The money transfer should be made IMMEDIATELY to the Privredna Banka Zagreb’s [commercial bank] giro account, which will issue the approval for the same amount to the HVO.”

The document shows how Croatia partially financed the war efforts of the Croat-led Herzeg-Bosnia and its armed forces, the HVO, amid its conflict with the Bosniak-led Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina – the official armed forces of the country at the time – between October 1992 and March 1994.

In the court records of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, this document is registered as exhibit number P06673, which was entered into evidence during the trial of six senior Herzeg-Bosnia political and military officials – Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoje Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic.

In May 2013, the ICTY found the six men guilty of crimes against humanity, violations of the laws or customs of war, and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions against Bosniaks.

In the verdict, the court concluded that Croatia’s 1990s President Franjo Tudjman, and his Defence Minister Gojko Susak, has established a joint criminal enterprise aimed at creating “a Croat entity, whose borders would partially follow the borders of the Banovina of Croatia from 1939” by forcibly deporting Bosniaks from the territory.

The verdict said that the aim of the establishment of Herzeg-Bosnia was to “reunite the Croat people”.

The joint criminal enterprise wanted Herzeg-Bosnia to “either be united with Croatia in case of the disintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, or remain within Bosnia and Herzegovina, “retaining close ties with Croatia”.

In other cases against Herzeg-Bosnia officials, the ICTY has found that Croatia had “overall” or “operational” control of HVO forces on the ground in Bosnia.

The court also found that the conflict in Bosnia had “an international character”, as Croatia was involved in it – a fact that Zagreb has tried its utmost over the years to deny, despite the documents that prove it.

The six Bosnian Croats are waiting to learn the outcome of their final appeal before the ICTY on Wednesday.

Regardless of the court’s ruling, numerous documents entered into evidence before the Tribunal show clearly how Croatia funded HVO during the Croat-Bosniak conflict between October 1992 and March 1994.

During the trial, the court registered as evidence documents that clearly show that Croatia financed the HVO from Croatia’s state budget, using the services of the state-owned commercial bank, Privredna Banka Zagreb, PBZ.

After the war, Croatia sold PBZ to an Italian bank, Banca Intesa.

Documents show how Susak gave orders for millions to be paid in the national currency – at the time called the Croatian dinar – to an account that the HVO had opened in a PBZ bank branch in the small southern Croatian town of Opuzen, a few kilometres from the border with Bosnia.

From September 21, 1992, when the account was opened, until October 30, 1993, Croatia’s government made 15 major transactions, each amounting to 83 million dinars – the equivalent of about 400,000 German marks at the time and about 200,000 euros at today’s valuation – or more.

These major transactions totalled over eight million euros, and they paid to finance the HVO and its war effort against the Bosniaks.

The people authorised to withdraw the money from these accounts were defendant Jadranko Prlic, who was Herzeg-Bosnia’s prime minister, and Neven Tomic and Zeljko Bandic from the Herzeg-Bosnia government’s financial department.

The ICTY also managed to obtain documents which show how some of these Herzeg-Bosnia officials crossed the border into Croatia and withdrew the money.

The HVO had another account opened at the PBZ in Opuzen for payments in foreign currencies. Croatia transferred two tranches to this account – on October 20 and November 30 1992 – of one million German marks (approximately 500,000 euros) each.

All in all, the ICTY managed to trace five accounts that the HVO held – at the PBZ in Opuzen, as well as in the Croatian town of Imotski, also near Croatia’s border with Bosnia, and in the town of Ljubuski, in western Herzegovina. Croatia transferred millions of euros to the Imotski and Ljubuski accounts as well.

Court exhibit P00910 shows how payrolls for particular HVO units were financed by Croatia. In the document, which dates from December 15, 1992, Susak orders that 306,909,700 dinars – approximately 750,000 euros – be transferred to the HVO’s ‘Bruno Busic’ regiment.

Another document, court exhibit P04876, shows how on September 8, 1993, the commander of HVO’s Convicts’ Battalion, Mladen Naletilic alias Tuta, asks Susak for the purchase of 12 German-made Heckler & Koch automatic rifles with silencers. In his request, Naletilic said that the transaction could be called “a loan” and concluded the message with the word “grateful”.

The ICTY sentenced Naletilic to 20 years in prison in 2006, finding him guilty of torture and the cruel treatment of Bosniaks, as well forcibly removing 400 Bosniak civilians from the villages of Sovici and Doljani.

Despite the existence of such documents, which have been entered into evidence by the ICTY and are thus publicly available, Croatian politicians still refuse to acknowledge their country’s role in the war in Bosnia.

A source who who studied the documents in the Herzeg-Bosnia case at the ICTY, and who agreed to speak if granted anonymity, insisted that the evidence of Croatia’s role in the war in Bosnia is overwhelming.

“Some Croatian officials and many Croats in public life routinely reject the notion that President [Franjo] Tudjman, Defence Minister Gojko Susak, and [chief of the general staff of the Croatian Army] Janko Bobetko… were handing down orders to or providing funding and other support for the HVO and its attempts to seize territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” the source told BIRN.

The source explained that in denying Croatia’s involvement, these officials only use “broad-brush, generalised rhetoric”.

“These people avoid citing or challenging the details, because the devil is in the details, and they know it,” the source emphasised.

The source explained that documents show how the money was first withdrawn from Croatian Defence Ministry accounts, transferred to PBZ accounts in Opuzen, and then withdrawn by HVO officials.

According to the source, the documents show how HVO was established by Croatia.

“This fact supports the conclusion that Zagreb could exercise significant, effective control over the HVO. He who pays the piper calls the tune,” the source said.

The documents effectively prove that during the war, Croatia was aiding the HVO’s attempts to subjugate parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, the source said.

“The fact is that these documents show that Croatia’s government made itself an accomplice, if not a partner, of Serbia’s government in undertaking a military effort to seize sovereign territory belonging to the internationally-recognised Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a member-state of the United Nations,” the source concluded.

While Zimbabwe was changing under various inexorable forces of power, the more sterile surrounds of The Hague and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia offered the scene for a conviction.

The “Serb Warlord” or the “Butcher of Bosnia”, as he has been termed in various circles, had finally received a verdict few were doubting. One of the doubters was, naturally, the man himself, Ratko Mladić, who accused the judicial officers of incurable mendacity.

Of the 11 charges levelled at Ratko Mladić, he was acquitted of one – genocide in Bosnian municipalities outside Srebrenica. Others covered genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity which took place while he was Chief Commander of the Army of Republika Srpska between 1992 and 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Judicial deliberations are rarely the stuff of fine history. Verdicts are, by their very nature, judgmental, giving false finality and coherence to muddy narratives. In the Balkans, muddy narratives have met and parted; others have been forged in the blood of memories constructed and confected.

Bodies have been heaped over these generational accounts – the wars, the murders, the ecstatic patriotism and genocidal enthusiasm, and in time, the descendants pursue the task, less of living for the future than inhabiting the unchanging past.

The politicians have been attempting to make do with the verdict. The Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, is mindful that anything less than solemn acceptance of the ruling is bound to be met with stares of disbelief throughout Europe. This is hardly the view within the Bosnian Serb entity of Republika Srpska.

“I would like to call on everyone [in the region] to start looking into the future and not to drown in the tears of the past… we need to look to the future… so we finally have a stable country.” Stability, that cherished dream, an ambition long frustrated in the region, and ever precarious.

Bosnia itself is a divided creature barely on political life support. Rather than promoting reconciliation, one of the proclaimed aims of the ICTY’s judgments, the opposite is true. Ed Vuilliamy, who spent much time covering instances of camp brutality and atrocity during the Yugoslav wars insists that Mladić may have lost his case, but won, at least in a part of Bosnia.

His consternation is the customary one that insists that Serbia and Serbian policies should have been brought to the fore as culprit and villain, rather than atomised through individual verdicts. Again, such are the limits of law and its false didactic worth.

Accordingly, “for all the back-slapping by human rights organisations and lawyers, there is a dark cloud under which the majority of those who survived Mladić’s hurricane of violence etch out their lives, and that shrouds the memory of those killed, or are still ‘missing’.”[1]

Niđara Ahmetašević enlarges that black cloud, accusing Europeans, notably in the west, for hypocrisy and wilful blindness. “By not reacting on time to stop mass crimes being committed, Western leaders sent a message to everybody in the world that it is OK to kill other people, and to promote dangerous, ultranationalist ideas.”[2]

With little surprise, survivors of the conflict find little in terms of satisfactory proportion. Sead Numanović of the Sarajevo daily, Dnevni Avaz, felt “some kind of emptiness.” Ajša Umirović went so far as to see such a verdict as futile. “Even if he lives 1,000 times and is sentenced 1,000 times to life in prison, justice would still not be served.”[3] That’s what losing 42 relatives to massacre does.

As with all matters to do with trauma, memory lingers as poisoned, selective and singular. It banishes other accounts and plights, becoming self-referential, a sort of infirmary consciousness. These sufferings and tendencies are not confined to the Bosnian Muslims.

When Yugoslavia fractured in the spirit of hypernationalism, it split the groups making up the entity. Jungle retributions, territorial seizures, expulsions, took place as a matter of historical account keeping. Elephantine memories were triggered and enacted upon.

Mladić insisted on purging the old remnants of the Ottoman Empire, a historic mission he dedicated himself to with conspicuous enthusiasm. He was fortunate to be quick off the mark in the aftermath of the independence referendum held by Muslims and Croats. Others, given the same opportunity, would have exploited it, given the men and material put at his disposal.

That the main fighting, slaughter and ethnic cleansing took place in Bosnia on, it is important to note, all sides, is a point judgments of law can only imperfectly consider. What rendered the killings in Srebrenica so fundamental was the scale and avid dedication of the butchers – some 8,000 Muslim men and boys dispatched – and the question of abandonment by the international community.

Mladić himself furnished a sense of how the law remains, in some instances, the least capable way of resolving what are, essentially, social and political problems that linger with vicious obstinacy. “I am here,” he told a pre-trial hearing in 2011, “defending my country and people, not Ratko Mladić.” He is far from the only one to persist holding this view, nor will he be the last.

Notes:
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/ratko-mladic-bosnia-camps-mass-murder-torture-rape-serbian

[2] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/ratko-mladic-disease-infecting-europe-171122164225395.html

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/22/bosnians-divided-over-ratko-mladic-guilty-verdict-for-war-crimes

By Thalif Deen

The United Nations is fighting a losing battle against the widespread – and continued – sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by UN peacekeepers and civilian staff resulting in relatively few convictions amidst daunting problems in tracking abusers and nailing down paternity claims.

But a proposal for a UN-supervised DNA data base – a law enforcement tool used successfully in many countries—has failed to get off the ground, even as the UN launches “16 Days of Activism” aimed at eliminating violence against women.

Anne Marie Goetz, Clinical Professor, Center for Global Affairs School of Professional Studies at New York University, told IPS there are a number of practical measures that can be taken to reduce cases of SEA, such as deploying more women peacekeepers, improved training and awareness-building, and better means for victims to report abuses.

“But a potentially effective deterrent measure that has not been much discussed is the idea of pre-deployment collection of DNA samples from uniformed and civilian peacekeepers”.

She said a simple mouth swab should be adequate to produce DNA material that can be matched against evidence in a rape case, or against the DNA of a baby in paternity cases.

The very act of collecting this sample should raise awareness about elevated probabilities of being caught in cases of sexual violence, or matched in paternity suits.

“Troop-contributing countries could also use this as an opportunity to explain to their peacekeepers that they will be liable for prosecution in cases of violence or abuse, and will be liable for child maintenance costs in paternity cases,” said Professor Goetz, a former chief advisor on Peace and Security at UN Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women.

But the proposal for a DNA data base has triggered opposition, both from staffers, and particularly member states, who provide troops for UN peacekeeping operations. The objection is largely on grounds of privacy protection.

Paula Donovan, the Co-Director of AIDS-Free World and its Code Blue campaign, told IPS that “Code Blue’s research leads us to conclude that Member States are unlikely to endorse a database of DNA samples from all military personnel deployed as UN peacekeepers, because the proposal contradicts most countries’ privacy laws and norms.”

She pointed out that most allegations of UN sexual exploitation and abuse are made against civilian personnel, so the Organization could lead the way by making the provision of DNA samples a condition of employment.

However, the UN Organization has an inherent bias in all criminal proceedings and paternity claims involving its own personnel, so the database would have to be created and controlled by an independent third party, she added.

“And even then, DNA evidence is a tool, not a solution: establishing a UN staff member’s paternity, for instance, is useless for a claimant until a court issues a child support order, and the UN enforces it,” said Donovan, a longstanding and relentless activist against sexual exploitation in the UN system.

Asked about the proposal to hold back funds in escrow, in cases of sexual abuse, she said former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed, back in March 2016, that accused peacekeepers’ withheld pay should be transferred to a trust fund when claims are substantiated against them.

“But the key problems remain unaddressed”, said Donovan.

Firstly, she said, there is “conflict of interest: Substantiated by whom – the UN Organization, whose own personnel are the accused?”

Secondly, “double standards: Why only soldiers, when most UN personnel accused of sexual exploitation and abuse are civilian staff and experts on mission,?” she asked.

Thirdly, she said, “there was no substitute for justice: Monies from the trust fund, including wages garnished (only while the accused are still UN personnel), don’t go to the individual victims, but are disbursed to organizations that work with all victims of sex abuse.”

Some individual victims might happen to receive some of that assistance, but in no case is access to victims’ services a replacement for criminal justice or civil court orders, Donovan declared.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which stores biological information, is described as a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

According to a BBC report, Britain pioneered the use of DNA as a crime-fighting tool, introducing the world’s first national database in 1985. Currently, it holds the profiles of more than five million people and is credited with helping solve some 40,000 crimes a year.

The US, Canada, Australia and most European countries have followed the UK’s lead, with DNA profiling internationally regarded as the most important breakthrough in modern policing. Until now, though, there has been little scientific research on whether such databases really do reduce offending, according to the report.

Professor Goetz of New York University told IPS “sexual exploitation and abuse by uniformed and civilian peacekeepers has probably been going on for longer than we know, but there has always been a great reluctance to admit it and address it, in part because of exaggerated anxieties that troop-contributing countries would withdraw badly-needed troops and civilian contributions.”

She said this assumption has never been actually tested. It could well be that, faced with SEA cases and a suspension of troop deployment until cases were resolved, a number of troop contributors would act with a great deal more alacrity to prosecute perpetrators in their ranks, she noted.

Ian Richards, President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations of the UN System (CCISUA), told IPS: “When UN staff sign up to work for the UN, they shouldn’t have to sign over their DNA. This proposal would presume that all UN staff are potential sex abusers.”

No employer or country, he said, asks its employees or citizens to hand over their DNA, and there are good reasons for that, including the right to privacy and to protect against misuse of personal information.

For example, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), a UN agency based in Geneva, was recently accused of trying to obtain staff members’ DNA in order to identify a whistleblower.

“We don’t want this to happen at the UN. And there is a strong likelihood that any UN DNA database could be easily hacked by outside parties, leading to other complications,” said Richards, whose Union represents over 60,000 staffers, both in the field and at UN headquarters in New York.

Providing an update on cases of sexual exploitation and abuse, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters November 3 that for the period of 1 July to 30 September, the UN has received 31 allegations. “Not all of them have been verified, and some are in the preliminary assessment phase,” he added.

Of the 31 allegations, 12 are from peacekeeping operations and 19 from agencies, funds and programmes: 10 are categorized as sexual abuse, 19 as sexual exploitation, and two are of an unknown nature.

He said that 12 of these allegations occurred in 2017, two in 2016, six in 2015 or prior, and the date(s) are unknown for 11 of them.

Meanwhile, Dujarric said: “We have continued our efforts to implement the Secretary-General’s strategy to combat sexual exploitation and abuse.”

Victims’ Rights Advocates have been appointed at Headquarters and in four field missions, and Assistant Secretary-General Jane Connors has returned from the Central African Republic, where the peacekeeping mission is under scrutiny.

“We are also piloting a Victims Assistance Protocol which sets the roles and responsibilities of those on the ground to ensure coordination to provide victims with immediate assistance.”

And with the most recent voluntary contributions from Member States, the UN Trust Fund in support of victims of sexual exploitation and abuse will rise to $1.5 million.

The Secretary-General has also instructed the heads of all entities system-wide to provide action plans and risk analyses to commit the leadership to the fight against sexual exploitation and abuse and almost all have been received.

“With regards to our efforts to end impunity, we are developing an electronic tool for screening UN staff dismissed as a result of substantiated allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, or who resigned or were dismissed during an investigation.”

“We have also launched mandatory training for all UN personnel prior to deployment. This month we are piloting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a single and uniform ‘Incident Report Form’ to ensure assistance is provided immediately, appropriate investigative action is undertaken, and to improve our data collection.”

Dujarric said: “We also continue our efforts to engage with Member States. So far, 58 Heads of State/Government have joined the Secretary-General’s Circle of Leadership. 74 Member States have signed the Voluntary Compact and 18 more have formally indicated their intention to sign it.”

Meanwhile, a meeting on UN peacekeeping, held in Vancouver, Canada, in mid- November, condemned in the “strongest terms sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN peacekeepers and staff, and called on Member States and the UN Secretariat to redouble efforts on prevention, accountability, and victim assistance.”

“We appreciate the Secretary-General’s latest efforts to establish a high-level Circle of Leadership and to develop voluntary compacts with Member States on the elimination of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, which we encourage all Members to pursue with the UN and implement fully,” the declaration read.

“We welcome the UN’s recent adoption of a victim-centered approach, including the appointment of the Victim’s Advocate, and in this regard, will strive to clearly identify policies and adequate standards to assist the victims of such heinous acts,” it added.

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

By Alemayehu G. Mariam*

Despite its apparently new interest in preserving democracy, for 37 years the military was an indispensable part of a fossilized oligarchy which betrayed the “revolution” and bankrupted Zimbabwe. Sadly, any post-Mugabe civilian government could only exist if it makes a Faustian bargain with the military.

In December 2016, the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) announced incumbent Robert Mugabe will be its sole presidential candidate in 2018. In February 2017, Mugabe’s wife Grace told supporters that if her nonagenarian husband “dies, we will field his corpse as a candidate.”  Mugabe chimed in declaring “there is no replacement, successor who is acceptable (to the people) as I am.” Last month, Mrs. Mugabe warned of a “coup plot”.

The best-laid plans of mice and (wo)men to continue Mugabe’s reign from the grave came to an abrupt end on November 15 when General S. B. Moyo declared Mugabe “and his family are safe and sound” and assured Zimbabweans there is no “military takeover of government,” only the “targeting criminals around (Mugabe) causing social and economic suffering in the country.” A day earlier, General Constantine Chiwenga defiantly warned the military “will not hesitate to step in to protect our revolution.”

Despite this apparently new interest in preserving democracy, for 37 years, the military was an indispensable part of a fossilized oligarchy which betrayed the “revolution” and bankrupted Zimbabwe.

Chiwenga acted because Grace-by-Mugabe-proxy was purging ZANU-PF leaders, particularly longtime vice president, liberation fighter and close Chiwenga ally Emmerson Mnangagwa, nicknamed the “Crocodile” because he is “power-hungry, corrupt and a master of repression.”

Chiwenga cynically invokes the specter of a betrayed “revolution” to legitimize the military’s intervention as a patriotic act in the imagination of Zimbabweans. But the fact remains Chiwenga saw a power vacuum in Grace Mugabe’s power play to replace her husband and filled it with his ally Mnangagwa.

So, is Chiwenga’s soft coup d’etat, “bloodless correction” still a military takeover of government?

The African Union condemned “what seems like a coup” and “demanded an immediate return to constitutional order.”  Mugabe’s nemesis and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai condemned the coup as “unconstitutional,” hectoring  legitimate change can come only “by the ballot box.”

Mugabe, the world’s oldest leader, is Zimbabwe’s only president since that country gained its independence in 1980. He was dubbed “hero of African liberation” for his role in dismantling white minority rule when Zimbabwe was known as Rhodesia.

Mugabe’s tenure in office began with great promise. In his 1980 “Address to the Nation” as Prime Minister-elect, Mugabe declared:

“Only a government that subjects itself to the rule of law has any moral right to demand of its citizens obedience to the rule of law. Our Constitution equally circumscribes the powers of the government by declaring certain civil rights and freedoms as fundamental. We intend to uphold these fundamental rights and freedoms to the full.”

Yet Mugabe’s 37 year-rule was notorious for its flagrant disregard of the rule of law and constitutional governance. In its 2016 report, Human Rights Watch condemned “intensified repression” and “disregard for the country’s 2013 constitution.” The 2017 U.S. State Department Human Rights report lamented Mugabe’s persecution of “non-ZANU-PF parties and civil society activists for abduction, arrest, torture, abuse” and disregard for “the rule of law.”

Mugabe completely destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy inflicting great hardship on that nation of nearly 17 million people. In 2017, Zimbabwe’s unemployment rate is 95 percent. In 2009, Zimbabwe had a hyperinflation rate of 231 million percent. In 37 years, Mugabe transformed Zimbabwe from a bread basket to a basket case with an estimated three million Zimbabweans exiled.

But is Zimbabwe jumping from the frying pan of civilian dictatorship to the open fire of military authoritarianism?

The Zimbabwean military has been an integral part of Mugabe’s kleptocracy and today, according to a Zimbabwe Institute paper, “virtually controls the major institutions of the state and formal policy making structures and processes of the country.” The military’s top leadership “have teamed up with politicians and businessmen to form political and economic interest groups venturing into lucrative business ventures, such as platinum and gold mining.”

The Zimbabwean generals are trying to convince the world that they have not staged a military takeover but seek to rid the government of corrupt criminals and restore constitutional governance. Their hidden agenda is to play kingmaker in a post-Mugabe civilian government.

In just a few days, Chiwenga and his co-conspirators managed to orchestrate a ZANU-PF party leadership call for Mugabe’s resignation. They trotted out Mugabe for first time since the “coup” for a graduation ceremony, only to display him “falling asleep in his chair as his eyes closed and his head lolled,” as Reuters reported. A convenient public relations coup for the military.

They swiftly moved to anoint Mnangagwa as Mugabe’s successor, arrange Mugabe’s expulsion from the party and set a short deadline for him to choose between a dignified resignation and the final coup de grâce.

Oblivious to the fait accompli, Mugabe emphatically announced he will preside at the upcoming party’s congress. The die is cast and apparently he will resign. General Chiwenga and his co-conspirators succeeded in replacing a 93-year old Tweedledee with a 75-year-old Tweedledum, without their fingerprints anywhere on the coup that is, supposedly, not a military takeover.

Zimbabwe’s generals are playing the familiar myth of a “democratic coup d’etat” in Africa. Over the past five decades, 79 out of the over 300 coup attempts in Africa have been “successful”. But Africa’s military have proved to be “no better than civilians when it comes to running governments,” according to Major Jimmi Wangome of the Kenya Army. The military has instead plunged “the continent into further suffering and turmoil.”

Time will tell if Zimbabwe will be able to escape this burden of African history. Chiwenga and his co-conspirators are manifestly more concerned about preserving the special privileges of the liberation revolutionaries than the promises of the anti-colonial revolution. Mnangagwa’s anointing is proof positive that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Sadly, any post-Mugabe civilian government could only exist if it makes a Faustian bargain with the military.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has welcomed the Supreme Court of Appeal’s (SCA) decision on Friday to overturn the initial sentence handed down to fallen paralympian Oscar Pistorius.

The SCA on Friday increased the sentence of Pistorius to 13 years and five months in prison for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day in 2013.

“The NPA is pleased with the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal to substitute the six year sentence to an appropriate 13 years. We believe it is in the interest of justice and we hope the family will find closure in knowing that an appropriate sentence has been handed down,” NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku told SAnews.

Judge Legoabe Willie Seriti said at the court sitting in Bloemfontein that the former paralympian should have been sentenced to 15 years. However, the SCA took into account the time he has already served.

“The sentence imposed by the…[high court] with respect to murder is set aside and substituted with the following – the respondent’s imprisonment for 13 years and five months,” Justice Seriti said.

North Gauteng High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa initially sentenced Pistorius to five years for culpable homicide in 2014. Pistorius served 10 months of the five-year sentence in prison before being released and put under house arrest.

The NPA appealed the culpable homicide conviction and it was later replaced with murder by the SCA in 2016. Masipa then handed down a six-year jail term for murder.

The NPA petitioned the SCA directly, arguing that the six-year sentence was too lenient.

“We respectfully submit that the sentence of six years imprisonment, in all the circumstances, is disproportionate to the crime of murder committed, in casu, that is to say, shockingly too lenient, and has accordingly resulted in an injustice and has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute,” the NPA said a year ago when applying for leave to appeal the six-year sentence of murder convicted Pistorius.

Pistorius shot and killed Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day in 2013, claiming that he believed she was an intruder.

The State was led by advocate Andrea Johnston after Gerrie Nel resigned from the NPA earlier this year.

The paralympian who is currently serving his sentence had opposed the state’s appeal.

By Daniel Cohen

On Thursday of last week, Tesla unveiled its long-awaited big rig truck and made the long-established hauling industry the latest business to occupy the auto maker’s crosshairs. Tesla’s move into the tractor trailer industry is a big leap for the sleek car manufacturer, but a reasonable one. The company is fueled—pardon the pun—by a desire to switch the world’s drivers away from the internal combustion engine and towards an electric vehicle while simultaneously creating a massive solar panel and battery infrastructure of the future. The move into big rigs is a logical step toward an electric-driven, reduced-emission future considering the fact that heavy duty trucks account for a substantial share of the world’s greenhouse gasses.

Curbing such a significant source of pollution is a noble task. But with each new electric truck that Tesla rolls out, another vehicle equipped with an “autopilot” system hits the streets. According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the adoption of autonomous driving vehicles—which can automatically engage braking systems and alert drivers to lane departures—will increase safety and hopefully reduce the roughly 4,000 annual deaths in truck-related accidents. While today’s systems are only “semi-autonomous,” we are not far from a future of fully self-driving automobiles. What repercussions loom around the bend once long-haul truckers—who account for more than 5% of the American work force—are suddenly out of commission? We’ve seen what the collapse of the coal industry has done throughout Appalachia. But the collapse of an industry of roughly 80,000 workers is nothing compared to the challenges that await around the bend as more than 3.1 million drivers find themselves at risk of automation.

“Drivers will become more like fleet managers,” Musk recently said about the coming transition in the trucking industry. And from the head of what is essentially a technology, energy, and auto company rolled into one, that’s a smart position to take. First of all, it implies that today’s truckers will keep their jobs. Second, these next-wave trucking jobs will be better, higher-paying managerial roles. That’s precisely the narrative the automotive industry wants to push in an effort to get the public, transit companies, labor unions, and government regulators to help create an environment for the transition to self-driving autos. Unfortunately, the road to this utopia is long and complex. The reality will be much different and nothing quite so neat and tidy as simply retraining truckers to manage self-driving fleets.

In the short-to-medium term, the extant trucking industry will be involved in the transition, but the economics work out to a massive de-valuation of truck-drivers’ skills and most probably (at least without expensive and invasive federal interference) wholesale replacement of truck drivers in the labor market, i.e. the elimination of their jobs and the creation of a new, less labor-intensive industry that channels money to technology and away from labor. The solution is not as simple as, “Hey, let’s retrain truckers!” Just listen to what Musk and other auto executives have to say on the subject and it’s easy to find holes in their narrative.

First, big auto says they don’t need a driver in a self-driving truck, just a lowly systems control technician who can eventually be relocated to a control center. Next, they say that person doesn’t need to have any qualifications so they could fill that position with monkeys earning one dollar per hour. Sure, regulation will create lots of jobs to deal with the red tape, but take a second and look at the fundamental value proposition of self-driving: eliminate costs by eliminating labor and human error. It can take many paths, but all of them will end up with a safer, cheaper, more efficient shipping industry—and a truckload of unemployed long-haulers.

Not everyone sees the trucking landscape of tomorrow as a nightmare. Last month, the Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffet made a major bet on truck stops as his Berkshire Hathaway purchased a minority share in roadside rest stop company Pilot Flying J (Berkshire’s stake will increase to 80% in 2023). While automation is coming (though not soon according to Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam), some analysts believe future regulations limiting the number of hours drivers can log will prompt more stops at facilities and boost Pilot’s profits in the near-to-medium term.

So, what is to be done to mitigate the inevitable impact of technological advancement? Like other industries threatened by automation, worker retraining is elemental. To finance this reinvestment in the American worker, we might consider the calls of Bill Gates and institute a “robot” tax. Such a proposal might perhaps not only bankroll the cost of retraining, but it may also slow down automation adoption, as companies will be forced consider the tax implications of such a move.

Throughout his campaign, President Trump promised a new era of prosperity for America’s coal workers, all while wearing a trucker hat with his infamous “Make America Great Again” slogan. If the commander in chief wants to protect millions of American jobs, perhaps he should turn his attention to the industry from which his headwear gets its name.

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

By Paola Tamma

(EurActiv) — The US trade department decided on Tuesday (21 November) to impose tariffs on imports of Spanish table olives, in another sign of rising protectionist measures under Donald Trump, which have drawn criticism from Europe.

“The U.S. values its relationships with Spain, but even friendly countries must play by the rules,” said US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

“We will continue to review all information related to this preliminary determination while standing up for American workers and companies.”

The measure is provisional and the trade department is due to take a final decision in April 2018.

It will impact “all colors of olives; all shapes and sizes of olives, whether pitted or not pitted, and whether whole, sliced, chopped, minced, wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in size,” which will be subject to import duties of between 2.31% and 7.24% – reflecting the rate of financial assistance provided by the Spanish government, according to the US authorities.

The EU is a registered party in the investigation and it claims that support to Spanish producers is consistent with WTO rules because it does not target a single industry or product.

“The Commission provided the US authorities with extensive evidence throughout the process showing that the EU’s support to farmers, including to Spanish olive producers, does not distort trade,” Commission sources told EURACTIV.com.

The number of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations by the US has increased by 61% since January 2017, when US President Donald Trump took office, compared to the previous year.

Commission sources said: “Trade defence investigations are a normal part of relations between countries having intensive trade relations, which is the case between the EU and the US. Nevertheless, there are worrying signs that recently the US has been increasingly using them as a political tool. As in all cases of this nature, the European Commission remains vigilant and will defend the rights of EU producers.”

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström met with the president of Andalucía, Spain’s main olive-producing region, on Tuesday (21 November), which would be hit the hardest by the tariffs.

In 2016, imports of ripe olives from Spain were valued at an estimated $70.9 million (€60 million).

Farmers’ unions are asking the Commission to step up efforts against what they see as a protectionist measure that may set a precedent for other EU agricultural exports:

”It is unacceptable that the main EU agri-food export market – the USA – can impose protectionist measures against our products without justification,” said Pekka Pesonen, secretary of Copa-Cogeca, representing farmers at EU level

“The key reason why Spanish imports of black table olives are so competitive is that producers have made huge efforts to cut their production costs and have also invested heavily in cutting-edge technology. Cooperatives also help farmers to be more efficient as they provide services to them using economies of scale. Support under the CAP is also allowed under WTO rules and consequently does not distort competition”, he stressed.

Seeking to capitalize on the Republicans’ disarray, public cruelty and Trumpitis, the Democratic Party is gearing up for the Congressional elections of 2018. Alas, party leaders are likely to enlist the same old cast and crew.

The Democratic National Committee and their state imitators are raising money from the same old big donors and PACs that are complicit in the Party’s chronic history of losing so many Congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative races—not to mention the White House.

The large, embattled unions are preparing to spend millions on television ads and unimaginative get-out-the-vote efforts, without demanding fresh pro-worker/pro-union agendas from the Democratic politicians they regularly endorse.

The same old political consulting firms, which also consult profitably for corporations, are revving up their defeat-prone tactics and readying their practice of blaming the candidates—their clients—when their strategies and lucrative ad buys don’t work.

The Party’s scapegoating machine remains well-oiled. To explain why they cannot defeat the cruelest, most plutocratic, anti-worker , anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-patient Republican Party in history, the woeful party leaders blame gerrymandering (in which they also engage), the Green Party, the Koch Brothers, voter suppression, “lying” Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the “Red States,” and more.

So what’s the plan for the Democratic Party? Their new slogan, developed at some cost by political consultants, is, “A Better Deal.” Mention this to John Larson (D-Conn.), a leading Democrat in the House of Representatives, and you’ll hear scorn and ridicule.

Major Democratic operatives and leaders flocked last week to the posh La Costa Resort in Southern California to discuss the Democracy Alliance’s theme of “Beyond Resistance: Reclaiming our Progressive Future.”

Aside from their usual avoidance of taboo subjects such as the corporate crime wave’s ravaging of workers, consumers and the poor, or the need for a “universal basic income,” (something which was supported in the nineteen seventies by no less than President Richard Nixon and market fundamentalist economist Milton Friedman—for more information visit basicincome.org) what were the Democratic strategists doing in this ostentatious venue?

A super wealthy waterhole like La Costa Resort with its spas, pools and golf courses is not a place that signals solidarity with the working class. But then what can be expected of a Party that has let the Republicans seize control and power over the interpretation of the Flag, the Bible and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Trenchant and prescient criticism of the Democratic Party by its own prime loyalists goes back many years. In 1970, John Kenneth Galbraith, eminent economist, author and adviser to John F. Kennedy, wrote an article for Harper’s, warning about the decline of the Party’s representation of the people’s interest. Twenty years later, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, wrote a column in the Washington Post calling the Democratic Party “dead.”

It was in the Seventies that the Democratic Party started abandoning the South and pursuing a blue-state focus in Presidential campaigns. This geographic neglect atrophied the party all the way down to local races. Presently, the Democrats are paying the price in their inability to support the campaign for US Senate by former prosecutor, Doug Jones, against Roy Moore, an accused the child-molester, religious hypocrite and prevaricator. This is a crucial contest in a narrowly divided Senate. In their coverage of this competitive race inside a very “red” state, the New York Times reports:

“With a fairly anemic state party, there is little existing infrastructure for routine campaign activities like phone banks or canvassing drives…There are no beloved statewide officeholders or popular party elders to rally the troops.”

“He’s got to do it all by himself,” said a former chairman of the state Democratic Party, Mark Kennedy.

The other milestone event in 1979 that has turned into a disastrous millstone around the Democratic Party’s neck was the party leadership accepting California Congressman Tony Coelho’s strenuous urging that it start pushing hard for the same corporate campaign cash that the Republicans had long solicited. The full-throated devouring of cash register corporate politics was the final slide into the pit of institutional corruption for the Democrats.

If the Democrats do not compete to win in all states – blue and red, and if they do not rely on the kind of small-donor fundraising so immensely successful in Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign, they will continue to lose elections under the failed leadership of Nancy Pelosi. She recently unfurled her mantra for 2018: “money, message and mobilization”—in that order, of course.

As former White House Counsel, Bill Curry, has repeatedly said in his incisive columns for Salon, “policy precedes message.” Without authentic policies for the people of our country, “message” following “money“ simply becomes the same political consultants’ con game.  “Mobilization” is not possible when voters feel there is no political movement prepared to work on their behalf.

By Shebonti Ray Dadwal*

Recently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has acknowledged India would be the fastest growing energy consumer – and market – till 2040. This applies not only to the hydrocarbon sector, but also for renewable energy (RE), as fast-declining costs turn solar and wind energy into the main drivers of growth in the power sector.

What does this mean for India, and more importantly, for its energy security? Poised to be among the top five renewables generators in the world in a few decades, moving up several notches from its current seventh position, will renewables solve India’s energy insecurity? After all, despite having an installed generation capacity of around 303 GW – the fourth largest – more than 300 million citizens are yet to gain access to electricity. At the same time, a growing economy and rising living standards has seen per capita consumption of energy increasing from a below global average – which means that there is room for even more growth! India is also one of the largest growing passenger vehicle markets. Yet, its stagnating domestic oil and gas production has seen import dependency for both growing year-on-year. While low oil and gas prices saw India’s oil and gas bill decreasing despite a rise in import volumes, a combination of OPEC strategy and West Asian geopolitics has led to the price of oil ascending gradually from a low of US $28 a barrel in early 2016 to more than $60 (Brent) currently.

No doubt, oil is not really a major contender for the power sector – except when intermittent power supply compels the use of diesel generators – and here renewables seem to be ruling as prices per unit of solar and wind-based generation are falling rapidly. Prices have dropped from a high of ₹17/unit in 2010 to ₹2.44 per unit by mid-2017 for solar and to between ₹ 3.51 to 5.92 per unit for wind as against coal which stands at around ₹3.20 per unit. With the goal set at 100 GW by 2022, India had ramped up its solar generation capacity to around 13 GW and 32.5 GW for wind by the end of fiscal 2016-17 as against 3744 MW and 17.4 GW, respectively, at the end of 2014-15. 1

That is the good news. But the challenges with regard to energy security remain grave. Much of the reasons lie with skewed policy decisions.

India’s impressive growth of RE generation has led to a vast demand for further growth, which, in turn, has led to huge imports of solar panel modules, mainly because domestically manufactured solar modules were more costly – around 10 to 15 per cent more – than imported ones from China, Taiwan and Malaysia. This led to the Indian government filing a petition for anti-dumping duty on module imports. That, in turn, led to a growing reluctance by solar exporters, particularly from China, Taiwan and Malaysia, to supply modules to India. In fact, around 89 per cent of solar modules used in India in 2016-17 were imported, and it is unlikely that domestic alternatives will be able to fill the gap. Moreover, the price of imported solar modules have increased by almost 12 per cent since the second half of 2017, due to the increased demand in overseas markets as well as a shortage of polysilicon, an important component in solar panels. Given that modules contribute to more than half of the overall cost of a project, the price increase is expected to hike up project costs by 18 per cent, which roughly translates into an increase of around ₹895 million for a 100 MW project.2 In per unit terms, this is expected to see the cost of solar go up to ₹3.50 to ₹4.00.3 With around 10,842 MW of utility-scale solar energy in the pipeline, the price hike is expected to affect project installations as the institutions which provide finance for the sector are showing increasing reluctance to finance projects due to concerns over cost recoveries and debt coverage. Alternatively, it may lead to an increase in the cost of solar power as the price hike is passed on to the customers. Hence, the very reason for the popularity of solar power may be defeated, leading to a fall in generation.

While a case can be made for continuing the import of solar panels, it does not lend itself to enhancing the country’s basic energy strategy of greater energy independence and security. For this, India would have to invest in creating a competitive module manufacturing sector across the manufacturing chain, from procuring primary resources to the finished product.

Manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines depend on access to rare earth elements (REE), which are a special class of 17 elements or minerals that have extensive use across various industries, including computer, healthcare, defence systems and batteries, apart from clean energy systems. As of now, China has the largest reserves of REE and largely controls the market, sometimes even using it as a strategic tool.4 Interestingly, India too has significant reserves of REE. According to some studies, it has the fourth largest reserves after China, the US and Australia. However, despite commencing rare earth mining activities more than five decades ago, India has not leveraged its advantage. A combination of low-cost Chinese production and lack of R&D, including in extraction techniques and facilities for the separation of individual elements from combined elements, has kept the sector from progressing up the value chain.

Taking cognizance of the challenge, the government has initiated a review of requisite policies to provide a fillip to the sector. In August 2017, the Supreme Court directed the central government to revise the 2008 National Mineral Policy by the end of the year and emphasised the need to encourage scientific mining through proper survey and exploration, as well as the need for adopting better mining practices, advancing R&D, and regulation of unauthorised activities. A new committee has been set up comprising representatives of various ministries and industry – keeping in mind the importance of involving the private sector – as well as representatives of organisations such as Indian Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey of India, Niti Aayog and the Railway Board. One of the main focus areas recommended was improved exploration and scoping of minerals, including rare earth and strategic minerals.5

With policies like electrification of the transport sector and sourcing 40 per cent of power requirements from RE, India needs to ensure that it has the necessary primary resources required to power its energy sector if it is to achieve its goal of energy security. No doubt, finding alternatives to low-priced Chinese REE or developing substitutes will take time and investment. But in the current situation, where China controls the global supply of REE and has even begun stockpiling in preparation for future market demand, efforts to diversify the REE supply chain is critical, both from the economic and security perspectives. India is a latecomer in the sector, but with requisite policy initiatives and implementation, it should join the battle for the soon-to-be-more-competitive renewables market.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

About the author:
*Shebonti Ray Dadwal is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

Source:
This article was published by IDSA.

Notes

• 1. Central Electricity Authority, “All India installed capacity (in MW) of power stations,” March 31, 2017, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/installedcapacity/2017/installed_c…
• 2. Sraisth, “Anti-dumping petition has created huge uncertainty for entire Indian solar sector, Bridge to India says,” pv magazine, November 16, 2017, https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/11/16/anti-dumping-petition-has-created…
• 3. Ameeta P. Duggal, “How would Anti-Dumping Duty impact India’s solar sector?,” ET Energy World, October 24, 2017, https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/energy-speak/how-would-anti-…
• 4. In 2010, China stopped exporting REE to Japan following a dispute over sovereignty of the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea.
• 5. Ikshaku Bezbaroa, “Centre starts reviewing National Mineral Policy following Supreme Court directions,” Down to Earth, September 10, 2017, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/centre-starts-reviewing-national-mine…

Barack Obama was not the lesser evil president. He was always the more effective evil. The ruling classes were in desperate need of a new and attractive face to complete their ugly agenda. George W. Bush and the Republicans were reviled and thus no longer capable of bringing imperialist plots to fruition. They were bad for the brand and were shown the door for use at a later date.

Obama certainly didn’t disappoint his patrons. He claimed that America was exceptional and indispensable and that no other nation had rights that it need respect. He succeeded in making some neocon dreams come true as he tried to bring the Project for a New American Century to reality. He destroyed Libya, supported a coup against an elected government in Ukraine and attempted regime change in Syria too.

Blood was shed and lives were upended all over the world under the Obama doctrine of American rights to global hegemony. But the corporate media and most Democrats said nothing. Now that Trump is in office the evil doing that Obama began is suddenly brought to light.

In 2016 reports emerged that African migrants were being enslaved in Libya. This columnist wrote about the atrocity here in Black Agenda Report but most of the American corporate media didn’t find the story newsworthy.

The Saudi genocidal war against Yemen also got the silent treatment. The war crime began in 2015, with a stamp of approval and military assistance from the Obama administration. Saudi Arabia was also the number one partner in crime in the assaults on Libya and Syria.

Democrats in Congress went along in support of the mass killing. If they had any objections they largely kept them to themselves. Now Libya and Yemen are in the news and not because any of the appeasers really care. These very important issues are being used to get Trump, who inherited the crime spree from President Hope and Change.

Black Agenda Report and international media revealed the horror visited upon African migrants in Libya ever since that country was targeted by the United States and NATO in 2011. Saudi Arabia has been killing Yemenis for two years. Now even Obama administration officials such as former United Nations ambassador Samantha Power express phony horror and shock regarding policies they helped bring about. “The United States should have long ago ended support for a Saudi-led coalition that, in addition to killing thousands of civilians thru air strikes, is now starving people. Enough is enough.” Power thinks or at least hopes that the rest of the world has amnesia when she posts on twitter.

The turmoil among the Saudi ruling family and their closeness to president Trump are now making life easier for the hitherto silent. Of course they are as concerned now as they were in the past, which is to say not at all. But now they have a target and his name is Donald Trump. They are using war crimes to get to him, just in case Russiagate doesn’t do the job.

There is certainly collusion going on but it isn’t between Trump and Putin. It is between the elites in the media and the Democratic Party who are trying to accomplish what they failed to do with voters and what they fail to do as their plans unravel around the world.

Barack Obama’s untouchability continues even as his human rights violations are revealed. His name is rarely connected to the catastrophes he unleashed. His friends still cover for him and leave his name off the perpetrators list despite the fact that he was at the top of the criminal gang.

The CBS news program 60 Minutes demonstrated how the subterfuge is carried out. They finally covered the starvation and cholera epidemic ravaging Yemen but didn’t mention how the United States military abetted the crime. They also threw in lies and blamed Iran for the suffering but that country is uninvolved. Iran is actually a continual target of the Saudis, but that easily provable information is too inconvenient to be revealed by CBS.

It is a good thing that the world knows about the enslaved migrants in Libya. It is good that Saudi Arabia’s crime against Yemen is now getting attention. But none of the criminals should be let off the hook. Barack Obama, his secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and all of NATO have blood on their hands. That fact should not be forgotten and must always be at the forefront of discussion and action.