The discovery of vast reserves of liquefied natural gas (LNG) off the coasts of Israel and Cyprus was bound to bring equally vast consequences in its train. Among the least anticipated, perhaps, has been the creation of a new geopolitical entity in the eastern Mediterranean – a tripartite alliance that promises to bring both stability to the region, and the prospect of enormous technological, economic and environmental advances.

“We, Alexis Tsipras, prime minister of the Hellenic Republic, Nikos Anastasiades, president of the Republic of Cyprus, and Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of the State of Israel, having met in Thessaloniki today, 15th June 2017, have agreed to continue strengthening the cooperation among our three countries in order to promote a trilateral partnership in various fields of common interest and to continue working together towards promoting peace, stability, security and prosperity in the eastern Mediterranean and the wider region.”

Those are the opening words of a 2,700-word joint declaration issued after a tripartite meeting between the political leaders of Greece Cyprus and Israel. It was the culmination of years of cooperation, driven forward by the LNG discoveries in Israeli and Cypriot waters.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a state is allowed to claim for economic use waters extending 200 nautical miles from its coast. When another country lies less than 400 nautical miles away (as Cyprus does in relation to Lebanon and Israel), governments are expected to negotiate a mutually acceptable line.

Back in 2007, Cyprus and Lebanon agreed on a maritime border that reaches south to a spot designated as Point 1. Three years later Cyprus negotiated a maritime halfway point with Israel that begins at Point 1 and stretches further south, thus establishing what is known as an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for Israel and safeguarding its rights to its oil and underwater gas reserves. The two countries agreed to cooperate in the development of any cross-border resources discovered, and to negotiate an agreement on dividing joint resources.

Despite both Lebanon and Turkey disputing the validity of this Israel-Cyprus agreement, cooperation between the two countries has flourished. It has led to the first-ever visit of an Israeli prime minister to Cyprus, and to subsequent meetings between Israeli and Cypriot ministers. In 2014 the two countries, as one aspect of their cooperation, agreed to hold joint military exercises.

This past year has seen an intensification of this collaboration. In March Israel participated in a three-day joint military exercise with Cyprus, in the course of which the Israeli Air Force tested Cypriot air defences. In June, more than 500 elite Israeli commandos, supported by attack helicopters and fighter jets, held a three-day intensive drill on Cyprus. The first of its kind, it was described by senior Israel Defense Force (IDF) officers as one of the largest exercises by the commandos on foreign soil.

Then November saw the first-ever trilateral defense summit between Israel, Cyprus and neighboring Greece. The defence ministers of the three countries met in Athens to discuss strengthening their collaboration in the interest of promoting security, stability and peace in the eastern Mediterranean. Cypriot defence minister Christoforos Fokaides said: “Cyprus, Greece and Israel defend in this volatile and fragile region not just their common interests, but also the interests of Europe and, I would say, those of the international community in general.”

Ten days later three Israeli missile ships and a naval helicopter participated in the Hellenic Navy’s autumn war games. The main aim was to provide training in how to deal with modern maritime threats while conducting evacuations of civilian populations.

“During the drill,” said Lt.-Col. Yaniv Lavi, commander of the Israeli delegation,”the naval forces carried out advanced training [in] search and rescue, prevention of maritime terrorist attacks, as well as advanced maritime medical evacuations.”

This exercise, according to the IDF, is to be followed up by an extensive military drill to be held in Cyprus, involving air and ground forces from both countries. The exercise, part of the ongoing cooperation between the IDF and the Cypriot military, was pre-planned as part of Israel’s 2017 training programme, and is intended to maintain the competence and readiness of the forces.

The growing military collaboration between Israel, Cyprus and Greece, is founded on the ambitious joint declaration signed in June by their political leaders, which envisaged the three-nation cooperation extending across a broad spectrum of areas including energy, economic activity, telecommunications, the environment and their shared underwater cultural heritage.

The declaration gave strong support to the establishment of what has been designated “the East-Med Pipeline”, namely another gas corridor, directly linking gas findings in the Cyprus and Israeli EEZs with the European markets. Far from establishing an exclusive three-nation club, the political leaders emphasised that they were ready to welcome other like-minded countries to join in promoting coordination and cooperation, regional peace and stability. A first step in that direction was the establishment of a quadri-lateral working group (Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and Italy) aimed at closely monitoring and supporting the EastMed project as an export route for natural gas from the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe.

In their joint declaration, the political leaders agreed to develop and strengthen collaboration in the manufacturing and commercial sectors, emphasising their intention to promote cooperation in technological and industrial research among research organizations in the three countries. In the field of telecommunication technologies, they agreed to cooperate in electronic technology, telecommunications and electromagnetic compatibility, with special interest given to cooperation in satellite manufacturing, earth remote sensing satellites and communication satellites. The countries also agreed to encourage the space technology sector and to support new cable interconnections among the three countries by way of Fiber Optic Undersea Cable.
They gave special prominence to protecting the environment, with special focus on the common challenges faced by their three countries, namely protection of the marine environment, water and wastewater management, and adaptation to the impact of climate change.

Partly from self-interest, but surely more from a concern for the common good, Greece, Cyprus and Israel have forged a working partnership with enormous potential for enhancing the prospects and life-chances of all who live in the eastern Mediterranean. Speaking at the defence ministers’ summit, Israel’s Avigdor Liberman said: “Greece, Cyprus, and Israel share common values as democratic countries and face similar security challenges. The cooperation is intensifying every day on many levels, based on the understanding that we must take our fate into our own hands.”

On December 11, in response to the growing humanitarian crisis in Yemen, more than 50 concerned people including representatives of various peace, justice and human rights organizations and communities, gathered in New York City’s Ralph Bunche Park, across First Avenue from the United Nations. Our message, which was communicated on signs and banners and by speakers addressing the rally, was simple and direct: end the war crimes being committed by the military of the United States along with Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners abetted by the US and end the blockade of Yemeni ports.

For more than two years, Saudi/US bombing has targeted civilian infrastructure: Hospitals, schools, factories, markets, funerals, sea ports, electrical power stations and water treatment facilities. US drones strikes and incursions by US Special Forces into Yemen have killed civilians as well. Armed conflict has directly taken the lives of some 12,000 people, but that tragic number is greatly exceeded by the number of those who are dying from a combination of malnutrition and otherwise easily preventable ailments and diseases like respiratory infections, measles, and cholera, including more than 1,000 children each week. 20 million of Yemen’s population of 28 million people are food insecure and few have access to clean drinking water. More than half of the hospitals in the country are not functioning.

Early in November, the already onerous blockade of Yemen’s ports was made practically total, prompting the United Nations Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs to warn that, unless the blockade of Yemen was fully lifted, “… there will be a famine in Yemen… It will be the largest famine the world has seen for many decades, with millions of victims.”

On November 27, limited exceptions to the blockade were made for humanitarian aid shipments alone. The resulting tightly controlled deliveries have been decried as an empty and vastly insufficient gesture by humanitarian aid groups, who are calling for the ports to be opened to all humanitarian and commercial shipments. Under this pressure, President Trump issued a very brief statement calling upon the Saudis to “completely allow food, fuel, water and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it.” Trump’s uncharacteristically polite request was not backed by anything much at all, much less by a freezing of US arms sales to the Saudis, nor did it address the practice of the US Air Force refueling Saudi fighter jets in mid-air or the US’ own drone strikes in Yemen.

Clearly, the times demand that more be done to counter this dire threat and some voices are being raised. Along with robust diplomatic efforts, there are legislative attempts to curtail arms sales to the Saudis. There have also been fasts, vigils and protests such as occurred in New York and other cities on December 11.

After speeches, songs and a powerful minute of silence, the rally moved up First Avenue to both the US and the Saudi Permanent Missions to the United Nations, led by banner reading “STOP US-SAUDI WAR CRIMES” and “LIFT THE BLOCKADE”, followed closely by officers of the New York City Police Department. Some of us felt compelled by conscience to stand in the doorway of the US Mission and after a short time, we were arrested for violating the “obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic” provision of the New York Penal Law regarding disorderly conduct. 15 of us, carrying photos of Yemeni child victims, were taken into custody and transported to the cells of the 7th Precinct on the city’s Lower East Side.

I could not help but wonder as we were handcuffed and loaded into vans, how those police officers could listen so impassively to the denunciations of crimes against humanity being committed and to the disclosures of a blockade that threatens the lives of millions, orchestrated from the buildings we stood before. How could these officers, then, after hearing our pleas and the stories of starving children without reaction, move so decisively to remove our nonviolent obstruction to the perpetrators of those crimes? Did they not wonder if they were arresting the wrong people?

The blockade of Yemen is an atrocious crime of the highest category, a violation of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international pacts. The US participation in the war on Yemen is a violation of the war powers provisions of the United States Constitution, at the very least. The imposition of our modest “blockade” of the United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations, in contrast, threatened no one. No one got sick or died because we stood in that doorway. In New York State, disorderly conduct is a violation, not even considered a crime at all. Still, the NYPD choose to ignore murder committed on its beat and to expend its prodigious resources to arrest and to prosecute law abiding citizens who demand an end to the crimes against Yemen.

Our protest began in Ralph Bunche Park, named after one of the founders of the United Nations and the first black American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950. Carved into the stone pavement there are these words from Mr. Bunche that speak to the present crisis in Yemen and to the many conflicts in the world today: “Peace, to have meaning for many who have known only suffering in both peace and war, must be translated into bread or rice, shelter, health, and education, as well as freedom and human dignity – a steadily better life. If peace is to be secure, long-suffering and long-starved, forgotten peoples of the world, the underprivileged and the undernourished, must begin to realize without delay the promise of a new day and a new life.”

*Brian Terrell is a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence and will be making his fifth visit to Afghanistan in September

Old forests that contain large trees and a diversity of tree sizes and species may offer refuge to some types of birds facing threats in a warming climate, scientists have found.

In a paper published in Diversity and Distributions, a professional journal, researchers in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University reported that the more sensitive a bird species is to rising temperatures during the breeding season, the more likely it is to be affected by being near old-growth forest.

Researchers studied 13 bird species that have been tracked annually in the U.S. Geological Survey’s annual Breeding Bird Survey, one of the most comprehensive efforts of its kind in North America. Only two — the Wilson’s warbler and hermit warbler — showed negative effects from rising temperatures over the past 30 years, but actual counts of both species show that their populations are stable or increasing in areas that contain high proportions of old-growth forest.

A team led by Matthew Betts, professor in the College of Forestry, reached their conclusions by analyzing data for bird populations, forest structure and climate across northwestern North America. The researchers used satellite imagery to determine the amount of old-growth forest within about 450 yards of each 25-mile-long bird survey route.

The findings provide an additional reason for old-growth forest conservation, said Betts. “Managers hoping to combat the effects of climate change on species’ populations may now have an additional tool – maintaining and restoring old-growth forest.” He noted that this is important because management recommendations from biodiversity and climate studies have traditionally been sparse. Such studies have tended to focus on moving species to cooler climates or simply reducing carbon emissions.

Wilson’s warbler winters in Mexico and breeds during the late spring and early summer along the West Coast and across northern North America from Alaska to New England and the Canadian Maritimes. Although it occurs in early-stage as well as mature forests, it is declining at a rate of about 2 percent per year in the Pacific Northwest.

The hermit warbler also winters in Mexico but breeds exclusively along the West Coast as far north as Washington. Its populations are relatively stable but declining in landscapes with low amounts of old-growth forest.

Additional research will be needed to identify the specific features of mature forests that buffer the effects of warming temperatures on birds. One possibility, the researchers said, is that the large trees themselves function as “heat sinks” during warm periods and thus moderate temperatures. Multiple canopy layers may also provide climate buffering effects.

Drinking a cup of hot tea at least once a day may be linked to a significantly lower risk of developing the serious eye condition, glaucoma, finds a small study published online in the British Journal of Ophthalmology.

But drinking decaffeinated and caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated tea, iced tea and soft drinks doesn’t seem to make any difference to glaucoma risk, the findings show.

Glaucoma causes fluid pressure to build up inside the eye (intraocular pressure), damaging the optic nerve. It is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide, and currently affects 57.5 million people, and is expected to increase to 65.5 million by 2020.

Previous research suggests that caffeine can alter intraocular pressure, but no study so far has compared the potential impact of decaffeinated and caffeinated drinks on glaucoma risk.

So the researchers looked at data from the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the US. This is a nationally representative annual survey of around 10, 000 people that includes interviews, physical examinations, and blood samples, designed to gauge the health and nutritional status of US adults and children.

In this particular year, it also included eye tests for glaucoma. Among the 1678 participants who had full eye test results, including photos, 84 (5%) adults had developed the condition.

They were asked how often and how much they had drunk of caffeinated and decaffeinated drinks, including soft drinks and iced tea, over the preceding 12 months, using a validated questionnaire (Food Frequency).

Compared with those who didn’t drink hot tea every day, those who did, had a lower glaucoma risk, the data showed.

After taking account of potentially influential factors, such as diabetes and smoking, hot tea-drinkers were 74 per cent less likely to have glaucoma.

But no such associations were found for coffee–caffeinated or decaffeinated–decaffeinated tea, iced tea or soft drinks.

This is an observational study so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, and the absolute numbers of those with glaucoma were small. Information on when glaucoma had been diagnosed was also unavailable.

Nor did the survey ask about factors like cup size, tea type, or the length of brewing time, all of which might have been influential.

But tea contains antioxidants and anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective chemicals, which have been associated with a lowered risk of serious conditions, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, say the researchers.

And previous research has suggested that oxidation and neurodegeneration may be involved in the development of glaucoma, they add, concluding: “Further research is needed to establish the importance of these findings and whether hot tea consumption may play a role in the prevention of glaucoma.”

The Palestinian Authority (PA) said Saturday it will not accept any change on the 1967 border of East Jerusalem.

A U.S. official said Friday that Washington expects that the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City will be part of Israel.

This position “confirms once again that the current U.S. administration has become completely outside the peace process,” PA spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina said in a statement cited by the official Wafa news agency.

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, triggering protests in the Palestinian territories and several Arab and Muslim countries.

This U.S. policy “runs against international legitimacy and consolidates the occupation,” Abu Rudeina said.

Jerusalem remains at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict, with Palestinians hoping that East Jerusalem — now occupied by Israel — might eventually serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.

Original source

Here are the 3 main Republican arguments in favor of the Republican tax plan, followed by the truth.

1. It will make American corporations competitive with foreign corporations, which are taxed at a lower rate.

Rubbish.

(1) American corporations now pay an effective rate (after taking deductions and tax credits) that’s just about the same as most foreign based corporations pay.

(2) Most of these other countries also impose a “Value Added Tax” on top of the corporate tax.

(3) When we cut our corporate rate from 35% to 20%, other nations will cut their corporate rates in order to be competitive with us – so we gain nothing anyway.

(4) Most big American corporations who benefit most from the Republican tax plan aren’t even “American.” Over 35 percent of their shareholders are foreign (which means that by cutting corporate taxes we’re giving a big tax cut to those foreign shareholders). 20 percent of their employees are foreign, while many Americans work for foreign-based corporations.

(5) The “competitiveness” of America depends on American workers, not on “American” corporations. But this tax plan will make it harder to finance public investments in education, health, and infrastructure, on which the future competitiveness of American workers depends.

(6) American corporations already have more money than they know what to do with. Their profits are at record levels. They’re using them to buy back their shares of stock, and raise executive pay. That’s what they’ll do with the additional $1 trillion they’ll receive in this tax cut.

***

2. With the tax cut, big corporations and the rich will invest and create more jobs.

Baloney.

(1) Job creation doesn’t trickle down. After Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cut taxes on the top, few jobs and little growth resulted. America cut taxes on corporations in 2004 in an attempt to get them to bring their profits home from abroad, and what happened? They didn’t invest. They just bought up more shares of their own stock, and increased executive pay.

(2) Companies expand and create jobs when there’s more demand for their goods and services. That demand comes from customers who have the money to buy what companies sell. Those customers are primarily the middle class and poor, who spend far more of their incomes than the rich. But this tax bill mostly benefits the rich.

(3) At a time when the richest 1 percent already have 40 percent of all the wealth in the country, it’s immoral to give them even more – especially when financed partly by 13 million low-income Americans who will lose their health coverage as a result of this tax plan (according to the Congressional Budget Office), and by subsequent cuts in safety-net programs necessitated by increasing the deficit by $1.5 trillion.

***

3. It will give small businesses an incentive to invest and create more jobs.

Untrue.

(1) At least 85 percent of small businesses earn so little they already pay the lowest corporate tax rate, which this plan doesn’t change.

(2) In fact, because the tax plan bestows much larger rewards on big businesses, they’ll have more ability to use predatory tactics to squeeze small firms and force them out of business.

***

Don’t let your Uncle Bob be fooled: Republicans are voting for this because their wealthy patrons demand it. Their tax plan will weaken our economy for years – reducing demand, widening inequality, and increasing the national debt by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

Shame on the greedy Republican backers who have engineered this. Shame on Trump and the Republicans who have lied to the public about its consequences.

One of the sinister methods employed to justify genocide has been to deny the history of the targeted victims. And that is what the criminal Buddhists within the apartheid state of Myanmar has been doing for nearly 70 years since earning independence from Britain on January 4, 1948. Instead of carrying out their hideous elimination process in one shot within a short period of time, however, the Buddhist Myanmar has been doing it slowly stepwise as part of a very sinister national project with full cooperation from top to bottom within the Buddhist community.

They termed Rohingyas as outsiders and officially robbed their citizenship thereby effectively making them stateless in the land of their ancestors, a crucial policy that would create the official justification for ongoing violence and expulsion of the targeted minority out of the country. The rape of women and wanton killing of innocent Rohingyas, let alone relentless persecution were employed as tactics to create an environment for forced exodus. The Rohingyas were denied each of the 30 rights enshrined in the Universal of Declaration of Human Rights.

To erase the Rohingya history, the names of historical landmarks were changed: Arakan was named the Rakhine state, and its capital city Akyab changed to Sittwe. Muslim monuments – mosques, shrines and madrassas that once dotted the Arakan coastal line was systematically gutted and destroyed.

Sadly, even such destructive measures were not considered enough by the Buddhist genocidal perpetrators; they raped, killed and terrorized people; they pillaged, burned and demolished Rohingya villages and towns.

History books were changed to de-link the Rohingya from the soil of Arakan. And worse still, to mobilize general Buddhist public against Rohingyas – who are mostly Muslims (and some Hindus) – the latter were dehumanized through carefully crafted propaganda. The victims were depicted as ‘vermin’, ‘cockroaches’, ‘snakes’, etc. to create the moral justification for their total extinction or annihilation. Pseudo scholars and academics with fascist leanings – like Aye Kyaw (now dead who taught in a NY university) and Aye Chan (who teaches at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan) – stirred up the Rakhine Buddhists and others within Myanmar to distort history and delegitimize the Rohingya people, thanks to Government incentives and supports that they received. The xenophobic Buddhist monks played their hate cards in ways that the world has not seen in decades. With active support from the government, its military and police, plus Buddhist politicians – all hardcore racists and bigots –  the genocidal pogroms unleashed against the targeted Rohingya came easy and were perceived as justifiable by the Buddhist public.

In genocidal pogroms of 1978 and 1991-92, more than half a million of Rohingyas were pushed out to Bangladesh when not everyone was later welcome back. In the latest 2017 pogrom alone, some 647,000 (and growing) Rohingyas have been pushed out. Thus, the Rohingya minority that once comprised roughly 45-47% of the population (per estimates made by area experts) before the current episodes (dating back to June 2012) has been reduced drastically to perhaps less than half a million living inside the Apartheid Myanmar. According to credible international agencies and medical sources, at least 6,700 Rohingyas were killed and tens of thousands of girls and women were raped by Buddhists of Myanmar – military and fascist Rakhines. Hundreds of Rohingya villages have also been destroyed by them to make return of the refugees impossible.

Sittwe, which used to be a mixed-ethnic city has no resemblance of its rich past heritage of co-existence. Rohingyas are interned in concentration camps with no access to the outside world. The Jama mosque now stands disused and moldering, behind barbed wire. Its 89-year-old imam is interned. All the Muslim owned shops have been grabbed by Rakhines, who now falsely claim that Rohingyas never owned any shop in the bazaar. Sittwe University, which used to enroll hundreds of Muslim students, now only teaches around 30 Rohingya, all of whom are in a distance-learning program.

Buthidaung, close to the border with Bangladesh, the traditional home of many Rohingyas no longer has anyone of their kind representing them in anything in the township where they comprised 90% population. It is now represented by a minority Rakhine, a hostile MP, who wants to push out the remainder Rohingyas to Bangladesh.

Rangoon (now called Yangon) whose majority population during the British era, esp. the 1930s, were Muslims and Hindus – racially Indian, has now a very small community that feels threatened, unsafe and insecure of their very existence. In the early decades of Burma’s independence, a Rohingya elite thrived in Rangoon. Rangoon University, the country’s top institution, had enough Rohingya students to form their own union. One of the cabinets of U Nu, the country’s first post-independence leader, included a health minister who identified himself as an Arakanese Muslim.

Even under Ne Win, the general, Burmese national radio aired broadcasts in the Rohingya language. Rohingya, women among them, were represented in Parliament.
Now, under Suu Kyi, everything is lost, and the days of hated dictator Ne Win, who robbed them of their citizenship, are viewed as better days!

That is the sad reality of the Rohingyas and other Muslims and Hindus still living inside Suu Kyi’s den of intolerance and hatred called Myanmar.

In a report released in October, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said that Myanmar’s security forces had worked to “effectively erase all signs of memorable landmarks in the geography of the Rohingya landscape and memory in such a way that a return to their lands would yield nothing but a desolate and unrecognizable terrain.”

The United Nations report also said that the crackdown in Rakhine had “targeted teachers, the cultural and religious leadership, and other people of influence in the Rohingya community in an effort to diminish Rohingya history, culture and knowledge.”

What is so grotesque is that Myanmar is one of the signatories of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which vowed to prevent genocide. And yet, it is the worst violator of our time!

The Convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” This includes not only killing members of the group, but also causing serious bodily or mental harm and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

As rightly noted in the 70th convention on the International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “Genocide does not happen by accident; it is deliberate, with warning signs and precursors.” “Often it is the culmination of years of exclusion, denial of human rights and other wrongs. Since genocide can take place in times of war and in times of peace, we must be ever-vigilant,” he continued.

The Secretary-General’s Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide Adama Dieng echoed similar sentiments, stating: “It is our inaction, our ineffectiveness in addressing the warning signs, that allows it to become a reality. A reality where people are dehumanized and persecuted for who they are, or who they represent. A reality of great suffering, cruelty, and of inhumane acts that have at the basis unacceptable motivations.”

Despite the comprehensive definition of genocide in the Convention, genocide has recurred multiple times, Guterres said. “We are still reacting rather than preventing, and acting only when it is often too late. We must do more to respond early and keep violence from escalating,” he said.

After a year of investigation, the organization Fortify Rights and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum said that there is “mounting” evidence that points to a genocide against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar with Burmese Army soldiers, police, and civilians as the major perpetrators.

“The Rohingya have suffered attacks and systematic violations for decades, and the international community must not fail them now when their very existence in Myanmar is threatened,” said Cameron Hudson from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Without urgent action, there’s a high risk of more mass atrocities,” he continued.

More than half of Myanmar’s one million Rohingya have fled the country since genocidal violence reignited in August. It has been the largest and fastest flow of destitute people across a border since the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said. “There was nothing left. People were shot in the chest, stomach, legs, face, head, everywhere.” Eyewitness testimony revealed that Rohingya civilians were burned alive, women and girls raped, and men and boys arrested en masse.

“These crimes thrive on impunity and inaction…condemnations aren’t enough,” said Chief Executive Officer of Fortify Rights Matthew Smith.

Myanmar government’s strict restrictions on Rohingya’s daily lives also point to signs of genocide. In 2013, authorities placed a two-child limit on Rohingya couples in two predominantly Muslim townships in Rakhine State.

Other equally credible international agencies have also come forward to claim that the crisis in Myanmar may constitute genocide such as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein and the British parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. “Considering Rohingyas’ self-identify as a distinct ethnic group with their own language and culture – and [that they] are also deemed by the perpetrators themselves as belonging to a different ethnic, national, racial or religious group – given all of this, can anyone rule out that elements of genocide may be present?” al-Hussein asked.

Though the UN Human Rights Council recently condemned the systematic and gross violations of human rights in Myanmar, the Security Council has failed to act on the crisis. China, shamelessly, with its own history of on-going horrendous crimes perpetrated against the indigenous Uighurs in Xinjiang (East Turkestan), has been responsible for the UNSC inaction on the Rohingya crisis.

In spite of serious cases of genocide in various parts of our globe, the first time that the 1948 law was enforced occurred on 2 September 1998 when the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found Jean-Paul Akayesu, the former mayor of a small town in Rwanda, guilty of nine counts of genocide. Two days later, Jean Kambanda became the first head of government to be convicted of genocide.

The first state to be found in breach of the Genocide convention was Serbia. In the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case the International Court of Justice presented its judgment on 26 February 2007. It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide during the Bosnian war, but ruled that Belgrade did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ICTY, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladic. On 22 November 2017, Ratko was sentenced to life in prison by the ICTY for 10 charges, one of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and four of violations of the laws or customs of war.

As the UN appeals for the remaining 45 member states to ratify the Genocide Convention, my question is what about states like Myanmar who are already party to the document? Will the UNSC take action against war criminals in Myanmar only after the last Rohingya is eliminated from their ancestral home?

Concerned UN and world leaders ought to know that simply increasing the number of signatories for the 1948 Convention beyond 149 members is not going to prevent genocide. The Convention requires all states to take action to prevent and punish genocide. Not only Myanmar, but the entire international community has failed to protect Rohingya civilians from genocidal atrocities.

Just complaining about the genocidal horrors and increasing membership to ratify the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide will not help. The civilized world simply cannot let savages to run the show and get away with their monumental crimes against humanity. If we are to avert a humanitarian disaster like the Rohingya crisis, this horror will have to be matched by stern action on the part of the international community. That means, trial and punishing the monsters.

By Daoud Kuttab

The UN Security Council is considering a draft resolution that would insist any decisions on the status of Jerusalem have no legal effect and must be rescinded after US President Donald Trump recognized the city as Israel’s capital.

The one-page Egyptian-drafted text, which was circulated to the 15-member council on Saturday and seen by Reuters, does not specifically mention the US or Trump. Diplomats say it has broad support but will likely be vetoed by Washington.

Meanwhile, Palestinian leaders, Muslim clerics and international experts on Saturday rejected attempts to predetermine the result of negotiations on the final status of Jerusalem.

The Trump administration believes that what Jews call the Western Wall and Muslims call Al-Buraq Wall will be part of Israel in a final agreement, a senior US official said on Friday.

“We cannot envision any situation under which the Western Wall would not be part of Israel. But as the president said, the specific boundaries of the sovereignty of Israel are going to be part of the final status agreement,” the official said.

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi told Arab News: “The US would do better to adhere to international law rather than start giving away other people’s lands, cities and sacred sites on the basis of absolutist dogma and religious claims. Sovereignty is not based on religious affiliation; it is a human, legal, political and secular issue.”

Ashrawi, an English language professor, said the US administration should conduct historical research before speaking on sensitive issues such as Jerusalem, and that it should “learn from historical catastrophes like the crusades, also in our part of the world.”

Just because a site is viewed as sacred by one faith or another, no country or faith has the right to invade, occupy and annex it, Ashrawi said. “If members of different faiths did that, the whole world would be a mess.”

Ekrima Sabri, imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque and former mufti of Jerusalem, said non-Muslims had no right to determine the status of an Islamic site. A commission approved by the League of Nations in 1930 concluded that the wall was solely owned by the Muslim waqf, an Islamic religious trust, he said.

The imam described America’s statement about the wall as “an insult,” and called on Arab and Islamic leaders to “reclaim their dignity and honor.”

Offer Zalzberg, a senior researcher with the International Crisis Group, told Arab News the latest American statement was “problematic because of its context, not its text.”

“The US essentially communicates that — all the way until an agreement is reached — Jerusalem, both west and east, is Israel’s capital,” he said.

Aaron David Miller, vice president for New Initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars and a former senior adviser on peace negotiations to Republican and Democratic administrations, said public comments on the future of Jerusalem were a “fraught enterprise.”

The Trump administration’s statements on the Western Wall were not inconsistent with previous administrations’ positions, especially the Clinton administration, and were “not fatal” to peace efforts, Miller said, but he expressed concerns about their effect.

Hussein Ibish, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, told Arab News: “There’s no question whatsoever that this makes the US role as a mediator infinitely more difficult and greatly complicates any potential involvement by Arab countries in the peace process.”

Rather than clarifying Trump’s initial statement recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which is what is needed, and emphasizing that the US position related only to West Jerusalem and not occupied East Jerusalem, this only added to the confusion about the American stance on Jerusalem, he said.

It also further prejudiced Jerusalem as a final-status issue and emphasized the extent to which US and Israeli commitments to Palestinians since 1993 about what issues remained to be mutually agreed on, and not preempted, had been unilaterally discarded, Ibish said.

“These comments make a bad situation worse by adding to the uncertainty about Washington’s policies and by foreclosing the idea many were clinging to that the White House would clarify that it is not preempting East Jerusalem issues.”

Research teams all over the world are exploring different ways to design a working computing chip that can integrate quantum interactions. Now, UNSW engineers believe they have cracked the problem, reimagining the silicon microprocessors we know to create a complete design for a quantum computer chip that can be manufactured using mostly standard industry processes and components.

The new chip design, published in the journal Nature Communications, details a novel architecture that allows quantum calculations to be performed using existing semiconductor components, known as CMOS (complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor) – the basis for all modern chips.

It was devised by Andrew Dzurak, director of the Australian National Fabrication Facility at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), and Dr Menno Veldhorst, lead author of the paper who was a research fellow at UNSW when the conceptual work was done.

“We often think of landing on the Moon as humanity’s greatest technological marvel,” said Dzurak, who is also a Program Leader at Australia’s famed Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (CQC2T). “But creating a microprocessor chip with a billion operating devices integrated together to work like a symphony – that you can carry in your pocket! – is an astounding technical achievement, and one that’s revolutionised modern life.

“With quantum computing, we are on the verge of another technological leap that could be as deep and transformative. But a complete engineering design to realise this on a single chip has been elusive. I think what we have developed at UNSW now makes that possible. And most importantly, it can be made in a modern semiconductor manufacturing plant,” he added.

Veldhorst, now a team leader in quantum technology at QuTech – a collaboration between Delft University of Technology and TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research – said the power of the new design is that, for the first time, it charts a conceivable engineering pathway toward creating millions of quantum bits, or qubits.

“Remarkable as they are, today’s computer chips cannot harness the quantum effects needed to solve the really important problems that quantum computers will. To solve problems that address major global challenges – like climate change or complex diseases like cancer – it’s generally accepted we will need millions of qubits working in tandem. To do that, we will need to pack qubits together and integrate them, like we do with modern microprocessor chips. That’s what this new design aims to achieve.

“Our design incorporates conventional silicon transistor switches to ‘turn on’ operations between qubits in a vast two-dimensional array, using a grid-based ‘word’ and ‘bit’ select protocol similar to that used to select bits in a conventional computer memory chip,” he added. “By selecting electrodes above a qubit, we can control a qubit’s spin, which stores the quantum binary code of a 0 or 1. And by selecting electrodes between the qubits, two-qubit logic interactions, or calculations, can be performed between qubits.”

A quantum computer exponentially expands the vocabulary of binary code used in modern computers by using two spooky principles of quantum physics – namely, ‘entanglement’ and ‘superposition’. Qubits can store a 0, a 1, or an arbitrary combination of 0 and 1 at the same time. And just as a quantum computer can store multiple values at once, so it can process them simultaneously, doing multiple operations at once.

This would allow a universal quantum computer to be millions of times faster than any conventional computer when solving a range of important problems.

But to solve complex problems, a useful universal quantum computer will need a large number of qubits, possibly millions, because all types of qubits we know are fragile, and even tiny errors can be quickly amplified into wrong answers.

“So we need to use error-correcting codes which employ multiple qubits to store a single piece of data,” said Dzurak. “Our chip blueprint incorporates a new type of error-correcting code designed specifically for spin qubits, and involves a sophisticated protocol of operations across the millions of qubits. It’s the first attempt to integrate into a single chip all of the conventional silicon circuitry needed to control and read the millions of qubits needed for quantum computing.”

“We expect that there will still be modifications required to this design as we move towards manufacture, but all of the key components that are needed for quantum computing are here in one chip. And that’s what will be needed if we are to make quantum computers a workhorse for calculations that are well beyond today’s computers,” Dzurak added. “It shows how to integrate the millions of qubits needed to realise the true promise of quantum computing.”

Building such a universal quantum computer has been called the ‘space race of the 21st century’. For a range of calculations, they will be much faster than existing computers, and for some challenging problems they could find solutions in days, maybe even hours, when today’s best supercomputers would take millions of years.

There are at least five major quantum computing approaches being explored worldwide: silicon spin qubits, ion traps, superconducting loops, diamond vacancies and topological qubits; UNSW’s design is based on silicon spin qubits. The main problem with all of these approaches is that there is no clear pathway to scaling the number of quantum bits up to the millions needed without the computer becoming huge a system requiring bulky supporting equipment and costly infrastructure.

That’s why UNSW’s new design is so exciting: relying on its silicon spin qubit approach – which already mimics much of the solid-state devices in silicon that are the heart of the US$380 billion global semiconductor industry – it shows how to dovetail spin qubit error correcting code into existing chip designs, enabling true universal quantum computation.

Unlike almost every other major group elsewhere, CQC2T’s quantum computing effort is obsessively focused on creating solid-state devices in silicon, from which all of the world’s computer chips are made. And they’re not just creating ornate designs to show off how many qubits can be packed together, but aiming to build qubits that could one day be easily fabricated – and scaled up.

“It’s kind of swept under the carpet a bit, but for large-scale quantum computing, we are going to need millions of qubits,” said Dzurak. “Here, we show a way that spin qubits can be scaled up massively. And that’s the key.”

The design is a leap forward in silicon spin qubits; it was only two years ago, in a paper in Nature, that Dzurak and Veldhorst showed, for the first time, how quantum logic calculations could be done in a real silicon device, with the creation of a two-qubit logic gate – the central building block of a quantum computer.

“Those were the first baby steps, the first demonstrations of how to turn this radical quantum computing concept into a practical device using components that underpin all modern computing,” said Mark Hoffman, UNSW’s Dean of Engineering. “Our team now has a blueprint for scaling that up dramatically.

“We’ve been testing elements of this design in the lab, with very positive results. We just need to keep building on that – which is still a hell of a challenge, but the groundwork is there, and it’s very encouraging. It will still take great engineering to bring quantum computing to commercial reality, but clearly the work we see from this extraordinary team at CQC2T puts Australia in the driver’s seat,” he added.

Other CQC2T researchers involved in the design published in the Nature Communications paper were Henry Yang and Gertjan Eenink, the latter of whom has since joined Veldhorst at QuTech.

The UNSW team has struck a A$83 million deal between UNSW, Telstra, Commonwealth Bank and the Australian and New South Wales governments to develop, by 2022, a 10-qubit prototype silicon quantum integrated circuit – the first step in building the world’s first quantum computer in silicon.

In August, the partners launched Silicon Quantum Computing Pty Ltd, Australia’s first quantum computing company, to advance the development and commercialisation of the team’s unique technologies. The NSW Government pledged A$8.7 million, UNSW A$25 million, the Commonwealth Bank A$14 million, Telstra A$10 million and the Australian Government A$25 million.

By Maggie Maslak

Multiple attacks against the Jewish community in Sweden have sparked outcry from leaders who have spoken out against the violence. The Bishop of Stockholm sent a personal letter to an affected community expressing his solidarity with them.

“It’s with deep sorrow that I have heard about the detestable attack on your parish. I just want to express my sympathy in this difficult situation. I pray that God will help and protect all of you,” read the note sent by Cardinal Anders Arborelius to a Jewish community which was attacked recently.

Over the weekend, bottle bombs had been thrown at a chapel on the grounds of a Jewish cemetery in Malmo, the country’s third largest city. This was the second time in recent years that the Jewish chapel had been attacked, following an arson attempt in 2009.

Additionally, a group of men attacked a synagogue in Gothenburg with firebombs last week. Three men were arrested on suspicion of attempted arson.

Hundreds of protestors gathered in Malmo last week, publicly shouting for violence against the Jewish community, saying, “we want our freedom back, and we will shoot the Jews,” according to the local public radio station. The next day, protestors also publicly burned an Israeli flag in Stockholm.

While there were no reported injuries or damages sustained by the recent anti-Semitic attacks, Malmo’s Jewish community sees the recent events as “extremely serious.”

“We strongly emphasize that we can never accept being subjected to threats and attacks,” the Jewish assembly said, according to the Times of Israel.

The attacks came ahead of the Jewish celebration of Hannukah, which began the evening of Dec. 12 and lasts through Dec. 20, and in the wake of U.S. President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

“There is no place for anti-Semitism in Swedish society,” said the country’s Prime Minister Stefan Lofven in a recent statement, according to the Times of Israel.

Sweden’s Interior Minister for Justice Morgan Johansson noted the increased security around Jewish buildings in the country and said that they have a strong relationship with the police, who have been patrolling for anti-Semitic activity.

“It is always possible to do more,” Johansson said, according to the Local.

“But we have a high level of alert and have allocated more money to the police and security services. We have given them better resources to gain more control over groups that can present a threat.”

Antje Jackelen, the Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala, said that “I would like to assure you of the solidarity of the Swedish church in the fight against anti-Semitism and violence in the name of religion,” the Local reported.

The Kazan newspaper, Biznes Online, held a conference on “100 Years of October and the Nationality Question,” whose participants agreed that for the Tatars and other non-Russians within the borders of the Russian Federation, “the revolution had a beginning but it has not yet ended.”

Consequently, as the 50,000-word transcript of its discussions makes clear, discussions of what happened in 1917 and its wake turned into where the non-Russians are now, the challenges they face, and the goals they have for themselves now (business-gazeta.ru/article/366903, business-gazeta.ru/article/367016 and business-gazeta.ru/article/367137).

The discussion was extraordinarily rich about both the past and the present and future. Below are some of the most important observations participants made about the revolution and its consequences through the end of the Soviet period and a more detailed discussion of what they said about the situation now and their prescriptions for the future.

Among the observations they made about 1917 and its aftermath, the following are especially striking:

• Ildus Tagirov, former head of the World Congress of Tatars, argues that Soviet federalism was from beginning to end “a forced measure” opposed by Lenin, Stalin and all Soviet leaders. They made concessions only because Lenin understood that a unitary Russia would collapse and bring down the communist regime with it.

• Aydar Khabutdinov of Kazan’s Russian University of Law says that “Lenin understood tha the had at the very least to hold Russian Russia, plus the regions of the Volga-Ural region and Central Asia. He knew not badly the programs of the national movements.”

• Maksim Shevchenko, a Moscow commentator, says that “Lenin was not a nationalist, not a Russian or a Tatar one or a Kalmyk, Chuvash or Jewish one.” But having grown up in the Middle Volga, he knew Tatar at least well enough to speak with people in that language. Shevchenko added that “had Lenin lived another 15 to 20 years, the federation would have been real” in order to oppose the West.

• Damir Iskhakov of the Kazan Institute of History says that Russia like other Eurasian empires during World War II was undergoing a process of decolonization, but Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to prevent that from going all the way in 1917.

• Ruslan Aysin, a Tatar political scientist, says Lenin thought “in order to be united, it is first necessary to be clearly subdivided.” Thus, he first pursued delimitation and ony then federalization. He was helped in this by the fact that the leadership of the Bolshevik Party included many non-Russians, for whom internationalism was “natural.”

• Shevchenko says that “Lenin would today have been against the bad on teaching of Tatar and even on the division of children into nationality classes … Present-day reforms are direted at the destruction of even the smallest remaining kernels of the Leninist Soviet revolutionary inheritance.”

• Marsel Shamsutdinov, a Tatarstan entrepreneur, says he doesn’t agree that if Lenin had lived, things would have been better. “Either Lenin would have become like Stalin and destroyed independence in the localities or Stalin would have done away with Lenin as he did with Trotsky and with all other opponents who interfered with his achievement of one-man rule.”

• Khabutdinov says that one of Lenin’s priorities was to prevent the emergence of two competing blocs on the territory of Russia, a Slavic one and a Turkic Muslim one.

• Shevchenko says that “Stalinist nationality policy continued the Leninist one on the whole.” And in an intriguing aside, he mentions that he owns “a copy of Mein Kampf published in 1929 in Russian “for the Bolshevik Central committee with a preface by Karl Radek. In that preface, Radek urged his readers to focus on “the anti-imperialist passages of Hitler.”

• Ayrt Fayzrakhmanov, vice president of the World Forum of Tatar Youth, says that “the idea of a Tatar-Bashkir Socialist Republic” which arose in 1918 was “the first Soviet project of a republic.” It was in part Stalin’s idea, “but in the fires of the civil war, this project died.” But it informed the formation of the USSR later.

• Iskhakov says that “if the language policy connected with the so-called rooting policy, which began already under Soviet poer had been continued consistently … then the Soviet Union would have fallen apart already at the end of the 1930s.” Stalin’s turn to Russian in 1932 was in part an effort to forestall that outcome.

• Shamsutdinov says that “the principle of self-determinatio of nations could not be realized in the Soivet Union” because it was “a feudal state where no independence federations or local self-administration was possible. Instead, everything was subordinated to the center.”

Turning to current events, Tagirov says that “either Russia will be developed as a democratic state or Russia will not exist.” Khabutdinov adds that what is happening now reflects mistakes made in the early 1990s and the failure of the Russian Federation to become a democracy with a well-developed civil society.

Shevchenko offers the most comprehensive discussion of what has been going on. He notes that “at the moment of the disintegration of the USSR,” the Muslim community within it was not in a position to play a major role because it was not well-organized and did not have access to the levers of economic or political power.

“Now, after the defeat of the terrorist Islamist underground in Russia, many special services [in Russia and the other post-Soviet states] have lost their raison d’etre.” And in an effort to save the situation for themselves, they are taking steps which threaten the countries of which they are a part.

The attack on minority languages is one of these mistaken targets. The special services and those associated with it don’t understand that by going after languages, they are joining a struggle with ethnocratic elites and even more with the populations within the republics involved.

According to Shevchenko, “if the ethnocratic elites were ordered to go about on lunar rovers and speak Martian but if by doing so they could keep their property, they would agree. But the language issue hits the selfcosnciousness of the enormous mass of people, toiers, peasants, the intelligentsia, and urban residents.”

The Moscow commentator says that the situaiton can be resolved only by turning to “a neo-Bolshevik national and society policy,” that is, by treating the nations as “the subjects of history” rather than by forming alliances or hierarchies of officials. That requires democratization and the formation of a civil society.

To promote that, Shevchenko calls for the convention of a democratic congress of the peoples of Russia as was done in 1917. If such “an alterantive democratic federationof peoples” doesn’t arise, then “a crypto-fascist empire” will be the only possibility left. In short, Russia stands before the choice between “a democratic union of peoples” and a dictatorship.

The Tatars at the roundtable were more pessimistic. Fayzrakhmanov for example says htat “in 1991, the Tatars consistently defended the preservation of the USSR, and the disintegration of the USSR played a bad joke on the Tatars,” one in which their standing and power have declined.

Unfortunately, he continues, “the national question is not question number one or even question number two” in Russia today. And consequently, if the country is subject to another revolution, “the nationality question as it was in 1917 will not be in the future” because Russia whether we like it or not is far more mono-ethnic.

“The slogan ‘take as much sovereignty as you can swallow’ remains important,” Fayzrakhmanov says. “It did not lead ot the disintegration of the Russian Federation.” Indeed, it may have postponed that end at least for a time, even though Moscow is now trampling on the very idea.

It is sadly the case that “the dialectics of Russian Federalism which could become a universal recipe for the entire world aren’t valued by many forces in the federal center. If they were, then solutions would be possible.”

And Shamsutdinov says that while less has been achieved over the last generation than many hoped for, “a new generation has grown up which does not know the fear of the KGB and which doesn’t watch as much television. We see them at meetings of Nalvany and others,” even though “today, a large part of the population of Russia remains passive.”

Happily and with Moscow’s unintended help, “Tatarstan has already woken up.

By Stephan Uttom, Rock Ronald Rozario and John Zaw

Rohingya refugees are demanding an international trial of Myanmar military figures, as a new report emerged estimating the death toll during the mass exodus to Bangladesh as high as 13,700.

According to the report from Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) more than 6,700 Rohingyas, including at least 730 children under the age of five, were killed in the first months of a Myanmar military crackdown that started in August in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State in response to attacks by Muslim militants.

However, MSF said based on samples of mortality rates and suveyed households, the figure could be between 9,400 and 13,700. More than 620,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh refugee camps during the recent crackdown.

The figures, released on Dec. 14, are thought to be a conservative estimate, but still much higher than the Myanmar military’s official death toll of about 400.

“We met and spoke with survivors of violence in Myanmar, who are now sheltering in overcrowded and unsanitary camps in Bangladesh,” said Doctor Sidney Wong, MSF medical director.

“What we uncovered was staggering, both in terms of the numbers of people who reported a family member died as a result of violence, and the horrific ways in which they said they were killed or severely injured. The peak in deaths coincides with the launch of the latest ‘clearance operations’ by Myanmar security forces in the last week of August.”

Abul Hashem, 48, a Rohingya father of five living in Kutupalong refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar told ucanews.com that it was difficult to say whether the MSF report is an accurate reflection of the killings and atrocities.

“But it is true many Rohingya were victims of massacres and the number should be more than the MSF estimate,” said Hashem, who fled his home in the Maungdaw area of Rakhine on Oct. 20.

“While fleeing to Bangladesh, we saw many dead bodies lying beside Rohingya villages, most of them shot dead. Also, we saw many people wounded by bullets who were fleeing towards the border.”

He added that the refugees wanted a proper investigation into the killings by the United Nations. They also wanted trial and punishment of the perpetrators in an international criminal court, he said.

Calls for a hearing in the international court in The Hague are rising on social media, particularly in the West and amongst fellow muslims.

Abdul Kalam, 38, a Rohingya father of two in Balukhali refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar, claims the MSF report underestimatesthe the real figures.

“I had 10 brothers and altogether 60 people in our family. The military and Moghs (Rakhine Buddhists) killed five of them with six still missing. I think the figure from the MSF report is underestimated and the real figure should be more than 15,000,” Kamal told ucanews.com.

He added that the Rohingya wanted not only justice from the international community, but also the return of the missing if they are still alive.

Dr. Wong admitted that the number of deaths is likely to be underestimated “as we have not surveyed all refugee settlements in Bangladesh and because the surveys don’t account for the families who never made it out of Myanmar”.

He added that the group had heard reports of entire families who had perished after they were locked inside their homes, while they were set alight.

Khodeza Begum, 31, came to Bangladesh from Maungdaw in Rakhine on Sept. 3 with her three children. Her husband was shot dead by Myanmar soldiers.

“I have seen with my own eyes how brutally my husband was killed by gunfire along with five to seven Rohingya men. I have lost touch with my brother, who I presume was also killed. I have seen so many dead bodies, and I don’t think the number 6,700 is correct, it should be much higher,” Begum told ucanews.com.

Sultan, a Rohingya resident from Maungdaw in the northern part of Rakhine, believes the death toll is at least 10,000.

He said that some Rohingya families are not staying in the camps in Bangladesh and some families that lost all members were not surveyed in the MSF report. He cited an example of a friend’s family where only one man survived after his parents and siblings were killed.

Khin Mg, a Rohingya resident from Buthidaung, said the Rohingya death toll was much higher than the official account of 400.

He said seven relatives were killed in Maung Nu village where some 700 people remained and the other 5,300 fled to Bangladesh. He estimates about 900 deaths in Buthidaung alone.

Khin Mg said violence had stopped in Buthidaung, but the situation had yet to return to normal. The Muslim community members are restricted from movement, work, and they need to bribe police to go from one village to another.

“The Rakhine community can go everywhere and move at night, but the rights remain curbed for the Muslim community,” Khin Mg told ucanews.com.

Around 85 percent of the Rohingya population in Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung townships in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine province have fled to Bangladesh over the last twelve months, leaving behind only 100,000-150,000 according to the International Crisis Group’s report of Dec. 7.

By Ruslan Mamedov*

On 4 December 2017, former President of Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh was assassinated in his home country. His murder came after clashes in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a and a schism within the tactical alliance Ansar Allah (often termed “the Houthi movement” in the media) and supporters of Saleh, primarily, the Republican Guard.

Ali Abdullah Saleh agreed to step down as president following mass protests in 2011–2012 in exchange for full immunity from prosecution for the actions he took during his term in office. The deal was supported by the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC). The process of transferring power from Saleh to his Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi (a native of South Yemen) was launched. According to Sergei Serebrov, Saleh’s removal was largely linked to a tribal rift in the country’s political elites, which had been latent and deepening since 2007.

In 2015, President Hadi was forced to flee the capital after Houthi forces seized control. Later on, the Houthi movement and the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, formed a tactical alliance. Hadi, in turn, took refuge in Saudi Arabia, which intervened in Yemen’s domestic conflict. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in conjunction with the Gulf Coalition (hereinafter, the “Coalition”) and enjoying the full support of the United States, the United Kingdom, etc., commenced bombing the positions of the Houthis and their followers. Not only did the operation aggravate the humanitarian situation, it also failed to facilitate any kind of political process. The Yemen peace talks in Kuwait were similarly unsuccessful. The United Nations described the ongoing situation in Yemen as catastrophic: the healthcare system was destroyed; 7 million people were on the verge of famine; and there were some 300,000 confirmed cases of cholera. The humanitarian situation in Yemen has continued to deteriorate.

The clashes that took place last week were triggered by Saleh’s decision to switch allegiances, as well as by his harsh rhetoric against the Houthis. He announced that he was ending cooperation with Ansar Allah and was ready to support the officially recognized government led by Hadi, accusing the Houthis of crimes against the Yemenis. However, to most of the country’s population and part of the Republic of Yemen Armed Forces, it sounded like their former President had betrayed them. The sentiment was carefully stoked by Houthi-controlled media and other Yemeni communications channels, with the Coalition announcing its support for Saleh further fanning the flames. What is more, the Hadi government made an announcement promising a new law that would pardon everybody who severed ties with Ansar Allah. Essentially, the situation was spun in such a way as to make it appear that Saleh had succumbed to the temptation to support rich Arab monarchies that had been blockading and bombing Yemen for three years.

Another factor, though not a key driver in the political processes, still deserves to be mentioned. The Houthis also see the killing of Ali Abdullah Saleh as revenge for the founder of their movement, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, who died in the Yemeni war in 2004 (during the 1990s and 2000s, Saleh led around six wars against the Houthis). Hussein al-Houthi is considered a martyr to the Houthis and is often referred to as Hussein of Yemen, a reference to one of the central figures in Shia Islam – the grandson of Prophet Muhammad Husayn ibn Ali killed by the forces of the Umayyad Caliph Yazid in Karbala in 680.

Saleh’s forces were defeated, and Ahmed Ali Saleh will now have to bring together what is left of them.

Regional Forces in Yemen and the Possible Balance of Power after Saleh’s Death

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (and, to a certain extent, Qatar) are the most influential actors in the history of Yemen. Western and pan-Arab media often refer to Iran, and more specifically, to Hezbollah, as the Houthi’s main sponsors. However, many Russian experts regard this position as a completely intentional and hysterical exaggeration of Iran’s role in Yemen. Although the Gulf Coalition has continued as a united front for a while, it soon became clear that each party is pursuing its own interests and goals. As such, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are known to have certain tensions which are not obvious from their joint rhetoric. While Riyadh supported President Hadi and took part in military operations in Yemen, albeit quite erratically, the United Arab Emirates gained more influence in South Yemen in pursuit of its own project to establish control over major ports in the Gulf of Aden. To illustrate, the United Arab Emirates already has military bases deployed on the Mayyun (Perim) and Socotra (both in Yemen) islands, in the port of Assab (including its airport, Eritrea), Djibouti (including its airport) and the military base in Berbera (Somalia).

The differences between Abu Dhabi and Doha are even more irreconcilable when it comes to the United Arab Emirate’s uncompromising position on Qatar’s Muslim Brotherhood (many experts argue that domestic Yemeni actors should not be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood). They have also added fuel to the ongoing crisis within the GCC, since tensions remain between Qatar and other GCC monarchies.

Reportedly, President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi has appointed Ali Abdullah Saleh’s son, Ahmed Ali Saleh, head of the Republican Guard. It should be mentioned that Ahmed Ali Saleh has been at the helm of the Republican Guard before, but has been residing in the United Arab Emirates as of late. Before the Coalition took up arms against the Houthis, he was Yemen’s ambassador to Abu Dhabi. He was then arrested in the United Arab Emirates. Ahmed Ali Saleh is believed to have been the liaison between his father and the powerful Al Nahyan family (who have a strong influence on the position of the Saudi-led Coalition through their close ties with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman). It is possible that the unexpected shift in Ali Abdullah Saleh’s rhetoric was brought about by certain agreements between him and the United Arab Emirates (and, through the United Arab Emirates, with the Coalition), but he ended up making a miscalculation. Saleh’s forces were scattered, and it is up to Ahmed Ali now to bring together what is left of them.

The collapse of the Saleh–Houthi alliance will without a doubt tip the balance of Yemeni political forces. This does not mean, however, the change will be for the better, and the Coalition will finally be able to destroy all the Houthi forces. We will most likely see further fragmentation of the political forces within the country. This article will not dwell on the role of the Al-Islah Party, the Southern Movement (al-Hirak), or even Islamic State or Al-Qaeda. The Houthis emerge as a fairly solid force against this background, even if they have been weakened somewhat by recent events. Even taking the intended merger of the forces of Ahmed Saleh, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and the Coalition into account, the Houthis will still enjoy strong positions in the north and remain a key player in Yemen. As for the General People’s Congress, led until recently by Saleh, Ansar Allah said: “The General People’s Congress remains our partner in the Supreme Political Council and in counteracting aggression. We need to intensify our cooperation.” Iranian politicians like to add another factor into the mix when the Houthis are defined as “rebels.” According to some political figures in Iran, Zaydis (followers of the Zaidiyyah sect of Islam widely represented in North Yemen) and Zaydi imams have ruled Yemen for centuries, and the Houthis represent this very part of the Zaydi population which is so essential for the Yemen political scene.

Moscow: Keeping Tabs

According to a press statement published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on August 21, 2017, Russia’s Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov received the newly appointed Ambassador of the Yemen Arab Republic to Moscow Ahmed Salem Al-Wahishi, who presented his diplomatic credentials. The move established an official Yemeni representative in Moscow, although, given the deep political crisis tearing the country apart, it was unclear exactly which side Al-Wahishi was intended to represent. On July 13, 2017, President of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, acting largely with the backing of Saudi Arabia, appointed him ambassador to Moscow. The new ambassador is believed to be a compromise between Mansur Hadi and former President of Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh. The appointment was in large part made possible by the fact that Moscow blocked almost every other candidate for the position from the Hadi government if they were known to be exclusively pro-Saudi in their political leanings.

What does Moscow stand to gain from issuing accreditation to a Hadi-appointed ambassador? Russia has shown it is ready to mediate in the crisis, but nothing more. Moscow has sought to alleviate some of the tensions in its relations with Saudi Arabia on the Yemen matter, while maintaining a multi-faceted approach. It has continued to work with all the actors in the crisis on different levels. Pragmatists on every side of the conflict benefitted from Russia’s move, since it put them on a path towards political dialogue. However, it is likely that Russia will abstain from any actual action on the ground to reinforce its diplomatic efforts due to its limited resources and current foreign policy priorities. Therefore, Russia’s commitment to promoting the political process can be defined as long-term.

In this context, we cannot avoid mentioning the Syrian conflict and possible relevant trade-offs between Saudi Arabia and Russia. However, it would be unreasonable to tie the conflicts in Syria and in Yemen together, even though some Russian experts believe that Syrian armed groups with connections to certain Saudi circles pose the greatest threat to the so-called de-escalation zones.

It should be noted that the Yemen crisis involves a variety of regional forces. If Russia were looking to take on a more active role, it would have to synchronize its interests with those players. Until recently, Russia was generally aligned with Iran and the domestic Yemeni forces it supported (in words rather than deeds, but occasionally also with some actual “ground” support), i.e. the Houthis and Saleh. The latter repeatedly urged Russia to return to Yemen by building a military base. However, despite Yemen’s logistical value, Russia, as we have pointed out above, has no reason to become actively involved in the matter and spend its resources in this part of the region. Moscow is quite satisfied with the current terms of access to the Gulf of Aden. Furthermore, Russia having a presence in Syria gave Russia the opportunity to influence key regional players (where the Astana process started), something which Yemen did not have. In any event, the Houthis will command strong positions in North Yemen and remain a key player on the country’s political scene.

The accreditation of the ambassador was thus an entry point to regional processes for Moscow. While this involvement has to be maintained, although it is not worth taking serious steps in circumvention of the UN Security Council. Furthermore, Moscow should revisit the security of Russian representatives in Sana’a. There should not be any radical changes in Russia’s politics in this area. Moscow will maintain working contacts with all the players involved, while taking the actual circumstances into account. This will help prepare Moscow for any possible further changes.

First published at RIAC

About the author:
* Ruslan Mamedov, MSc in International Relations, Program Coordinator (MENA) at the Russian International Affairs Council

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy

While it is legitimate to question the ethics and rules surrounding autonomous weapons, the idea that their development will necessarily usher in an apocalyptic future may not be accurate.

By Akhil Deo and Bedavyasa Mohanty

Ever since the debate on lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) first began circa 2013, polarized opinions and doomsday prophesies have hindered a more nuanced analysis of the issue.

Four key arguments form the mainstay of a recent piece’s call for a ban. First, that the development of autonomous weapons will reduce combat fatalities for the aggressor, driving militaries to engage more frequently. Second, that these weapons will proliferate rapidly, ultimately falling into the hands of authoritarian regimes. Third, that in the past, the international community has successfully banned devastating weapons, such as biological ones. Finally, that they will kick- start an AI arms race.

These are real concerns and were key points for discussion at the UN group of governmental experts (GGE) that met last month in Geneva. The answer, however, does not lie in a ban. At the GGE, the video that Matthan refers to in his piece was criticized by AI experts for sensationalism, and for not accurately reflecting technological realities. While it is legitimate to question the ethics and rules surrounding autonomous weapons, the idea that their development will necessarily usher in an apocalyptic future may not be accurate.

For one thing, autonomous weapons by themselves are unlikely to lower the threshold for war. Political, geographical and historical drivers are far more likely to influence a state’s decision to enter into an armed conflict. The threshold for engaging in conflict depends on countries concluding that they can favourably change a certain status quo—whether it is to gain or safeguard territory, resources or political capital. That autonomous weapons would somehow influence this calculation any more than precision-guided missiles or drones, for example, is mere speculation. If anything, calls for a pre-emptive ban might hinder the deployment of autonomous weapons in defensive capacities, such as the SGR-A1 gun used by South Korea along its demilitarized zone or Israel’s semi-autonomous Iron Dome that intercepts incoming rockets and artillery. These weapons can, in fact, increase the cost of aggression, thereby deterring conflict.

Second, LAWS rely on advancements in AI and machine learning. The argument that a ban might prevent such weapons from landing in the hands of a dictator is unconvincing, because most developments in AI are taking place in the civilian sector, with the potential for “dual-use” military capabilities. Moreover, autonomous weapons are likely to be developed progressively—with autonomy being introduced gradually into various functions of weapon systems, such as mobility, targeting and engagement. It is currently impossible to define which kinds of autonomous weapons need to be banned given the dearth of functioning prototypes.

Third, comparisons between autonomous weapons and biological, or even nuclear, weapons rely on a false equivalence. The latter, by their very nature, are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, thus conflicting with well-established IHL principles of distinction. LAWS, on the other hand, given enough technological sophistication and time, can meet the IHL thresholds of distinction and proportionate response. Initially, new autonomous weapons are likely to be deployed in areas where civilian presence is minimal or absent, such as the high seas or contested air-spaces.

Finally, while the idea of a new arms race is cause for concern, it is undeniable that it has been under way for some time now. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots reports that at least six states—the US, UK, Russia, China, Israel and South Korea—are already developing and testing autonomous weapons, while another 44, including India, are exploring their potential. That every member of the UN security council refused to consider a ban on the GGE is a powerful indication of how (un)successful a ban is likely to be.

Ultimately, the future of autonomous weapons will pivot around questions of strategic value, not morality. Current international debates on LAWS resemble a prisoner’s dilemma between nations with significant technological capabilities and nations that are wary of an imbalance in strategic stability. India, an emerging power, should not fall prey to the insecurity plaguing smaller nations, like Pakistan and Cuba, who have been joined by 20 other countries in calling for a ban. A pre-emptive ban is only likely to compound inequity in military capability, with the bigger powers employing these weapons anyway.

Rather than mischaracterizing LAWS as new weapons of mass destruction or harbingers of a dystopian future, it is critical to develop principles and norms to govern their use. With nations unanimously agreeing that they will never deploy weapons that can operate outside human control, conversations need to be steered towards identifying degrees of necessary human control. Consequently, new frameworks of accountability and military necessity require significant consideration.

The focus must necessarily shift from controlling autonomy in weapons to controlling the lethality of their use. Any calls for a ban on fully autonomous weapons, even before a functional prototype has been developed, are like deciding what the right answer is even before the correct questions have been framed.

This article originally appeared in Live Mint.

US president Donald J. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem potentially sets the stage for a controversial American effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The United States and the two Gulf states see a US peace plan-in-the-making as a way of paving the way for more overt cooperation with Israel in confronting Iran, whom they accuse of destabilizing the Middle East.

In doing so, the United States, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are navigating a minefield. Protests against Mr. Trump’s move have so far underplayed the link between the fight against Iran and apparent Saudi and UAE willingness to compromise on minimal Palestinian demands for peace that include East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

That could change as US plans for an Israeli-Palestinian peace crystalize and the link to the Saudi-Iranian rivalry manifests itself. At the core of the US draft plan is reportedly the controversial suggestion that Abu Dis, a Palestinian village bordering on Jerusalem, rather than East Jerusalem, would be the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Perceived Saudi and UAE backing for the proposal that is reportedly being drafted by Mr. Trump’s aide and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would bring anger at alleged Arab complicity to the forefront, fuel the persistent anti-US and anti-Israel protests, and complicate the campaign by the US and the two Gulf states against Iran.

The notion that Abu Dis could replace East Jerusalem has been around for almost two decades. It failed to garner support during the 2000 Camp David Israeli-Palestinian peace talks because Arab and Palestinian leaders rejected it. Saudi and UAE eagerness to work with Israel coupled with Mr. Trump’s seemingly unqualified support for the Jewish state has given the proposal a new lease on life.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE, despite their official condemnation of Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem, have signalled a willingness to be more flexible by continuing to support Mr. Kushner’s effort and playing a low-key, if not dampening, role in Arab and Muslim rejection of the president’s move.

Ironically, differences among Arab leaders about how to respond to Mr. Trump’s Jerusalem decision may have temporarily prevented Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, from adding Palestine to a string of failed foreign policy moves aimed at escalating the kingdom’s proxy war with Iran. Prince Mohammed’s devastating military intervention in Yemen, botched effort to force Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to resign, and hamstrung boycott of Qatar have backfired and only strengthened the Islamic republic’s regional influence.

Inadvertently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah did Prince Mohammed a favour when they reportedly rejected pressure by Prince Mohammed not to participate in this week’s summit of Islamic countries in Istanbul. Saudi Arabia was represented by a lower level Cabinet official. Mr. Abbas may have further shielded the Saudi leader when his refusal to further accept the United States as a mediator was adopted by the summit.

The two leaders’ stand coupled with the Islamic summit’s rejection of Mr. Trump’s move make it more difficult for Saudi Arabia and the UAE to endorse any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that does not recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The problem is that Prince Mohammed and his UAE counterpart, Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, run the risk of misreading or underestimating public anger and frustration in significant parts of the Arab and Muslim world.

The link between Israeli-Palestinian peace making and Iran is likely to become undeniable when Mr. Trump next month must decide whether to uphold the 2015 international agreement with Iran that put severe restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

Under US law, Mr. Trump has to certify Iranian compliance every three months. In October, Mr. Trump refused to do so. He threatened to pull out of the agreement if Congress failed to address the agreement’s perceived shortcomings within 60 days. Congress has so far refrained from acting on Mr. Trump’s demand. Mr. Trump wants Congress to ensure that Iranian compliance involves accepting restrictions on its ballistic missile program and support of regional proxies.

It is anybody’s guess what Mr. Trump will do. At first glance, US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s presentation of Iranian missile parts as evidence of Tehran’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen and Iranian destabilization of the Middle East would suggest that Mr. Trump is preparing to decertify Iran and possibly withdraw from the agreement.

It could however also be an effort to project a tougher US stance towards Iran while cooler heads in the administration prevail on Mr. Trump to keep the agreement in place.

In either case, Mr. Trump and his Gulf allies are walking a tightrope by fuelling suspicion that they are willing to compromise on minimal Palestinian demands for peace in a bid to cater to Israel, a natural ally in the fight against Iran.

In doing so, Mr. Trump and the Saudi and UAE crown princes risk misreading not only the public mood but also Iranian influence and intentions, particularly regarding the Islamic republic’s ability to control the Houthi rebels. Ms. Haley’s evidence that was supplied by Saudi Arabia and the UAE failed to convince many in the international community.

Ms. Haley’s missile parts display was prompted by the Iranian-backed Houthis firing of a ballistic missile at Riyadh on November 4. It remains unclear whether that missile was supplied by Iran, or possibly North Korea, and when it was given to the Houthis – key questions that need to be answered to determine possible Iranian culpability.

The Houthis, a fiercely independent actor who have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not take orders from Tehran and at times ignore its advice, could throw a monkey wrench into the fragile Middle East mix if they make good on a threat to target not only Saudi but also Emirati cities. A missile strike would no doubt provoke a harsh response, possibly involving a joint US-Saudi-UAE strike against Iran rather than against the Houthis in Yemen.

Anger already aroused by Mr. Trump’s decision on Jerusalem potentially could then turn against Arab leaders who would be seen to be cooperating with the United States and willing to sacrifice Palestinian rights to work with Israel.

In short, it could open a can of worms in which public anger is directed against multiple parties ranging from the United States to Israel to Arab leaders to Iran and the Houthis and/or prove to be a perfect storm.

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

The recent Russia-China-India Trilateral Foreign Ministers Meet in New Delhi brings into sharp focus the charade of perpetuating a geopolitically redundant conclave which serves no security interests of India.

Significantly, as 2017 comes to a close, the preceding foreign policy formulations of Russia and China manifested so far clearly suggest that there are more divergences than convergences even at the bilateral level of Russia-India and China-India relations, leaving alone in terms of strategic convergences between the three.

In terms of Russia –India bilateral ties schisms are visible in the most crucial and sensitive region of South Asia. Russia with its recent tilt towards Pakistan should reinforce a conviction in Indian foreign policy establishment that Russia is complicit with China in stifling India’s natural predominance as the regional power in the Indian Subcontinent.

In terms of China-India relations, the Indian foreign policy establishment should cease de-emphasising that China is a serious military threat to India by virtue of the massive China-India military confrontation on India’s Himalayan borders with China Occupied Tibet

Additionally, with the China-Pakistan Axis acquiring sharper and menacing contours hardly any scope exists to analyse alternatively that China is hell-bent on checkmating India’s rise as a leading Asian power.

With the above equations starkly evident in 2017, the moot question that arises is as to what strategic ends of India are served by continuing to participate in conclaves of this Trilateral as 2017 closes?

Strategic ends of India could have been served even partially had Russia been in a strong position to provide countervailing power or to moderate China’s hostile policy stances and military confrontation against India. The reality today is that Russia is not in a position to do so by its comparative decline as a power to reckon with relative to China.

Russia on the other hand is seen as seconding China’s military adventurism in Indo Pacific Asia from South China Sea to Pakistan and Afghanistan. In all of these and many others, Russia’s stances impinge on India’s legitimate security interests.

The Indian foreign policy establishment has not been sleeping either in terms of appropriate geopolitical responses to the China-Russia strategic nexus which as in the 1990s does not seem to be that nebulous.

The US-India Strategic Partnership strengthening, the Global Special Strategic Partnership with Japan and the recent US-Japan-India-Australia Quadrilateral, or the Quad are noteworthy initiatives to prevent India being geopolitically imbalanced.

Any argument in any quarters that the Russia-China-India Trilateral became devalued because of India’s growing proximity to the United States is untenable. Simply, because India had to explore for countervailing power, even existential, to the strengthening of the China-Russia Strategic Nexus.

Contextually therefore, and something which I have been arguing for in my earlier writings and assertions is that it is high time that India de-links itself from all China-led or China-sponsored organisations like the SCO or BRICS. Both of these are as geopolitically redundant to India’s strategic or even economic needs as the Russia-China-India Trilateral.

In the same vein, India at no cost should succumb to joining China’s flagship project—the One Belt One Road Project. This project though projected in economic sugar-coating by China is nothing but a blueprint for China’s stranglehold in Indo Pacific Asia and Eurasia.

If one glances at the map portraying the extent and configuration of China’s OBOR it is amply clear that the underlying motives are strategic and not economic prosperity. Strategically, China’s OBOR and its associated flagship project in Pakistan—the CPEC, running through Indian Territory under Pakistani Occupation will seriously impede India’s rise as a leading Asian power.

Concluding, with the contextual backdrop painted above it should be amply clear that it is not in India’s strategic interests to continue through this charade of perpetuating the Russia-China-India Trilateral which has been rendered geopolitically redundant by Russia and China moving away from its original imperatives at the time of conception of this Trilateral. In 2017 this Trilateral merely remains a trophy for Russia and China for geopolitical signalling to the United States in Indo Pacific Asia.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

The Grand Surge

As expected, the Grand Leftist Alliance led by K.P. Oli swept the polls in Nepal both at national and provincial levels with the exception of Province 2 where the Madhesi groups have prevailed. In terms of performance it was one of the worst for the Nepali Congress who have themselves to blame for this huge set back. For India, having supported shifty and incompetent leaders the decimation of the democratic forces must have been expected, but there is no need to panic as is seen in the Indian media.

While the Leftist Alliance has crossed the two thirds mark in the FPTS (First Past the Post System), in the overall strength of the Parliament of 275, they will not be able to retain the two thirds majority as the Nepali Congress has done adequately well in the Proportional Representational system. Thus the present constitutional structure cannot be changed as was being threatened by the Maoist leader Dahal!

Prominent Winners and Losers

From the UML, all the three members of the triumvirate K.P.Oli, Madhav Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal have won. Veteran Ishwor Pokhrel of UML has also won.

From the Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Prakash Man Singh (son of late Ganesh Man Singh), Dr. Mrigendra Rijal and youth leader Gagan Thapa have won.

From the Maoists Centre, their chief Dahal has won. So has Baburam Bhattarai the leader of the Naya Shakthi group from Gorkha 2 constituency. The Terrain leaders have all won including Upendra Yadav and Rajendra Mahato. One welcome addition from Terai is the popular pediatrician Dr. Suryanarayan Yadav from Saptari I constituency.

Among the losers would be Narayan Kaji Shrestha from the Maoists Centre, Ramachandra Paudel and Bimalendu Nidhi, Arjun Narsingh KC from Nuwakot, the Mahat brothers and K.P. Situala former Home Minister from the Nepali Congress.

Converting Friends into Enemies

As expected, the UML riding on a wave of ultra nationalistic anti Indian platform won handsomely. K.P. Oli was seen to be someone who had stood up to India during the blockade period. His inflexible attitude towards the Madhesi groups in refusing to make any amendment to the constitution helped him to rally the hills in his favour. The general feeling in Nepal is that the people have voted for UML for preserving Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity!

Traditionally, the UML and their leaders have many contacts with their counterparts in India and were not earlier seen as antagonistic towards India. What has made them turn against India is some thing of a surprise.

The blockade enforced by the Madhesi agitators was seen in the hills as one encouraged by India. The UML used this opportunity to galvanise the rural masses on a nationalistic (read anti-Indian) platform and consolidate its position in the hills.

On the other hand, the democratic forces led poorly by the Nepali Congress had no counter strategy to deal with the upsurge in favour of the leftist forces. Though negotiations between the UML and the Maoists who were then in the government had been going on for over a month through low level intermediaries, the Nepali Congress was blissfully unaware of the developments until the alliance was announced. Their intelligence had failed. By then it was too late to make any counter strategy. The Nepali Congress even failed to rope in all the democratic forces to challenge the leftist alliance!

An opportunity for China and a challenge for India

It is almost certain that K. P. Oli will be taking over as Prime Minister. There is no need to panic as is being displayed in the Indian media- I have said earlier in another paper and I quote:

“Once when they come to power the UML cannot continue with the antagonism they are displaying now towards India. The left alliance manifesto has a very ambitious agenda and even if it has to implement a quarter of all that is said, it needs the help and cooperation from India. It is hoped that the UML leadership would sooner than later realise the need to have good relations with India for mutual benefit.”

The Nepalese are a very pragmatic people. For stability and prosperity, Nepal can neither play one against other nor it can afford to anatagonise one power in favour of the other. In this connection, following points arise.

1. There will be very enthusiastic response to the Chinese offer of financing projects under the Belt Road Initiative. It is hoped that Nepal will not fall into a debt trap as is happening to other countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kampuchea, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Chinese aid is hardly benign!

2. There will be an attempt to dilute dependence on India and diversify trade. India should be ready for it and in fact welcome it.

3. There will be pressure on India to review and revise the special relations and the Indo Nepal Friendship Treaty. The best approach from the Indian side would be to let the Nepalese decide what kind of relationship they would prefer- but facilities should be mutual and not one sided. Let the Nepalese decide on the kind of trade and economic relationship, they would be comfortable with. Fixed exchange rate of two currencies is not a sustainable option and in due course – free floating could be thought of.

4. To me, the leftist surge looks like a temporary one and in course of time, if the democratic forces play their cards level, they could regain the sympathy and support of the masses. But their leadership needs a thorough change. But are they ready?

5. There should be some introspection from the Indian side. The anti Indian sentiments and the surge in the leftist influence should be taken note of. There is a great reservoir of goodwill for India in every walk of life. There is no need for panic either. India needs Nepal as much as Nepal needs India. Hopefully, status quo ante to pre blockade days will be restored.

By Felipe Villamor

Senior defense and military officials from the Philippines and China held closed door talks in Manila on Friday to boost cooperation amid new reports that Beijing has persisted with its buildup in the disputed South China Sea despite earlier pledges of restraint.

The Philippine delegation was led by Defense Undersecretary for Policy Ricardo David, while Jiang Guoping, the vice chief at China’s Central Military Commission, represented Beijing during the Annual Defense Security Talks (ADST).

“The talks emphasized the importance of the South China Sea for the region’s economic growth and development,” the Philippine defense department said in a statement.

ADST has been held since 2004 with Manila and Beijing alternately serving as host. It has been limited since 2013 after the Philippines filed and eventually won a case related to territorial claims in the South China Sea at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

China has rejected the ruling as flawed even as the international community has applauded the decision.

Since then, the frosty bilateral relations thawed a bit when President Rodrigo Duterte moved to appease Beijing.

The high-level talks “provided both sides the opportunity to exchange views on the current regional security situation and flesh out concrete plans to cooperate in addressing security concerns mutually faced by the Philippines and China,” the statement said.

“The talks also emphasized the importance of the South China Sea for the region’s economic growth and development,” it said.

Officials from both sides “expressed support for the peaceful settlement of disputes through lawful, non-coercive, and transparent means.”

The Philippine side in particular expressed optimism that the adoption of the Framework for the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea in August 2017 brought them closer to the long-sought conclusion of a binding and meaningful agreement, the statement said.

Philippine defense and Chinese embassy officials could not be reached for comment after the talks.

Think tank report

The statement came a day after the United States-based Asia Maritime Transparency Initiatives released a report that said China has continued with its militarization of its islands in the South China Sea as the international spotlight has shifted. New satellite imagery released by the think tanks showed China has built structures that could be used as permanent facilities for military purposes.

Beijing, according to the report, has remained committed to moving into the next phase of its activities to include the building of infrastructure necessary for a fully functioning naval bases on larger outposts. China allegedly include high frequency radars, storage facilities that could hold weapons and missile shelters.

The non-stop buildup apparently occurred as Beijing engaged the Philippines and the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in talks aimed at easing tensions, it said. Apart from China and the Philippines, portions of the potentially rich sea region is claimed by ASEAN countries Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam and Taiwan.

The report came just weeks after President Rodrigo Duterte hosted Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in Manila shortly after the Philippines hosted the annual ASEAN summit where the “chairman’s statement” reaffirmed the need for peaceful resolution of disputes in the region.

In 2017, Asia and the Pacific will be home to 62 million international migrants. That’s a population larger than the Republic of Korea’s. Even more people from our region – over 100 million – live outside their countries of birth. At the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) we see this as an opportunity. One we should seize to shape a better future for our region.

There are many reasons for which people migrate. Students do so looking for an education unavailable in their own county, to broaden their horizons and improve their prospects. Some migrants are refugees, fleeing violence and persecution. In our region, we have tragically seen hundreds of thousands of civilians, the clear majority Rohingya, flee their homes in Myanmar to seek safety in Bangladesh in what the UN Secretary General has rightly described as a refugee emergency: an unacceptable humanitarian and human rights nightmare that must be brought to end.

But most migrants move in search of jobs, higher wages and a better life for themselves and their families. Their remittances – $276 million dollars in Asia-Pacific in 2017 alone – provide welcome support to communities in their countries of origin. Put simply, remittances feed children, pay for education and healthcare and lift people out of poverty. But if migrants move for their own benefit, they also do in response to the needs of the countries to which they travel. By moving where the jobs are, migrants support innovation, productivity and growth.

Migrants’ contribution is all the more remarkable considering the challenges they face on arrival, after long, expensive and perilous journeys. Migrants are often poorly paid and have limited access to public services. They tend to work in low skill jobs in the informal sector. Debts taken out to pay illegal fees to secure employment mean they can have little choice but to accept dangerous physical labour. Female migrants are particularly vulnerable. Often employed as domestic workers, they can suffer exploitation and abuse. To compound matters, migrants are frequently turned into scapegoats, their contribution downplayed by inaccurate, prejudice fuelled narratives.

Addressing these challenges could help unleash migrants’ potential as a force for positive change. The economic dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region and its ageing population means migrants could play an even bigger role in our economies and societies, plugging labour and skill shortages. But for them to do so, clear policies are needed to protect migrants’ rights in the workplace, improve their access to essential services and make it easier for them to help families they have had to leave behind.

This was recognised by Member States of the United Nations in the wake of the European refugee crisis when a bold initiative was launched to negotiate a global compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration by 2018. At its heart lies a simple ambition: to protect migrants’ human rights. Grounded in existing laws and practices, and with full respect for Member States’ sovereignty, this compact should lay the foundations for international cooperation for the benefit of countries of origin, destination, and the migrants themselves.

To help shape this agenda, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific held a regional consultation in November. Governments, civil society and the private sector met to identify regional trends, share best practice and agree on priorities to feed into global negotiations. Several key priorities emerged: protecting migrants against exploitation by unscrupulous employers by facilitating legal migration; ensuring migrants can transfer money quickly, securely and at low cost; cracking down on human trafficking; and helping those who may be forced to move because of natural disasters exacerbated by climate change.

There was strong commitment on all sides to cooperate to drive this agenda forward. I hope International Migrants Day can help keep up the momentum, promote the positive contribution migrants make in our region and help achieve safe, orderly and regular migration across Asia and the Pacific.

*Shamshad Akhtar is the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

To know a land requires one to understand the nuances within it: how natives interact with their locale, how natives interact with one another, and how natives interact with outsiders.

These three facets of interaction shape an environment by shaping individual perceptions of their own position within their land. “Insiders” – those who have lived, learned, and worked within a specific locale for an extended period of time – are naturally privy to the nuances of these interactions. They have the ability to interact in the local dialect and have the obligation to uphold certain social norms and standards within that locale.

However, “outsiders” – those who are either visiting a place and/or merely living in that space for a temporary time period and have a specific raison d’être for being there – are not privy to the full extent of the specificities of an environment. Colloquialisms, common understandings of interactions, and unspoken cultural expectations can only be learned in extended periods of time – which outsiders do not have the benefit of.

Morocco brims with contrasts

Morocco is indeed a land of contrasts.i Be it social, economical, geographical, architectural, cultural or ethnical. Morocco, indeed, brims with them. First and the easiest to notice are geographical. Surrounded by the mighty Atlantic Ocean and the mild Mediterranean Sea, the coast of Morocco is gorgeous and yields pleasant weather. Moving inland, the daunting Atlas Mountains are encountered along with the Rif Mountains. Among these lies Jebel Toubkal, the highest mountain in all of North Africa. Beyond these breathtaking mountains is the largest desert in the world, the Sahara. In a country with such a relatively short breadth, the geographical contrasts are phenomenal, not to say heavenly because of the diversity they offer.

The architectural contrasts are diverse in the country. The old medinas with the walls, and the daunting Kasbahs overlooking the ocean are a contrast to the French-European-inspired city of Casablanca, and the plush streets in Rabat.

When discussing contrasts within a country, it is essential to address the economic disparity that is readily apparent. On a drive across the country or even across the city of Rabat, there is a huge difference in the living conditions and opportunities available for the rich as opposed to the poor. This observation, however, is one that could easily be made in almost every country.

Morocco’s geography is a contrast in and of itself. Throughout Morocco it is not only people that shape the land; it is, also, the land that shapes the people. Much of the major differences in lifestyle can be attributed not only to culture and religion, but to vast differences in topography, as well. The Moroccan from Rabat and the Moroccan from the Atlas Mountains each has a completely distinctive life experience, and often a different community structure. However, each is inherently Moroccan and staunchly in love with his country, the strong feeling of Morocconess known as: tamaghrabit.

On the issue of diversity RootsRated writes in Come to the Sahara:ii

« With the iconic Sahara desert, rugged mountains, and both Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts, Morocco’s landscape features a wide variety of unforgettable vistas. Adventurous travelers can follow Berber paths to mountain huts, ski Africa’s highest-altitude resort, and harness the Atlantic wind with a kite or windsurfing sail.

And set between the peaks and oasis-like valleys are isolated tribal communities and sophisticated cities with thousands of years of rich history. Narrow streets wind to ancient caravansera is, while locals gather in cafés and steamy hammam baths. The Marrakech marketplace hums with snake charmers’ tunes and fast-talking touts, and inside the bustling Fes medina are colorful tanneries, craftsmen’s shops, and the longest-running university in the world.

That diversity offers you the chance to trace a path from wilderness to traditional culture, from campfires to high cuisine. Morocco’s landscape follows the curve of the coast as sandy beaches transition to a pair of mountain ranges that ripple through the heart of the country, followed by the Sahara Desert at the southeastern edge. Here’s the lay of the land. »

Morocco is a land of contrasts and startling diversity

Morocco is a land of contrasts, not contradictions. This North African nation is home to a startling diversity, making its people and regional cultures very different – but not contradictory. This diversity means that contrasts are inevitable – it is only necessary to walk down the street to see a contrast of cultures and ideas, both religious and temporal. The mere presence of diversity precedes some sort of contrast, which means Morocco cannot escape contrasts and comparisons. The sheer variety in Morocco is a study in peaceful co-existence of a diverse people for centuries.iii

Morocco’s location on the edge of the continent, bordering the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea and nearly touching Europe have made it a location of strategic importance over the millennia. Its location has led the country to be the crossroads of the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. Morocco’s culture draws on these influences, being Sub-Saharan, African, North African, Middle Eastern, and European, all at the same time.iv

The people living in Morocco draw upon European, Arab, Sub-Saharan African, and Amazigh heritages. Moroccan religious culture echoes its Sunni, Shia, and even Christian history, further enriched by its longstanding Jewish minority. With relatively low religious violence (compared to its neighbors and other Muslim countries), Morocco is a safe place to study religion and one need not fear being in the minority. Foreign visitors are traditionally met with nothing but acceptance of their religious views and diverse identities by Moroccans.

On religious tolerance, The Economist writes:v

« When Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal in the 15th century, many fled to Morocco. The Jewish population in the kingdom rose to over 250,000 by 1948, when the state of Israel was born. In the ensuing decades, as Arab-Jewish tensions increased, many left. Fewer than 2,500 remain—still more than anywhere else in the Arab world.

No Arab country has gone to the lengths of Morocco to revive its Jewish heritage. The kingdom has restored 110 synagogues, such as Slat Lkahal, which opened in Essaouira during the festival. A centre for Judeo-Islamic studies is set to open in the old kasbah later this year. The kingdom also boasts the Arab world’s only Jewish museum. “We used to have a six-pointed star on our flag and coins, like Israel,” says Zhor Rehihil, the curator (who is Muslim). “It was changed under French rule to five.” »

Contrasts are omnipresent in Morocco. The ethnical contrasts are very evident in the society, also. European descendants near the northern coast, the high rates of blond hair in the Rif, the Arab population reminiscent of the invasion in the 8th century, to the darker skinned people in the southern part of Morocco. It is very possible to see people of various ethnic backgrounds in everyday life here. Moroccans are in general very open-minded about diverse ethnic backgrounds and foreigners, one and all, are very welcome in this country. It is, no doubt, due in part to the diverse ethnic groups found in Morocco and the history of outside influence that made the people open-minded to other people, beliefs, cultures and ideas.

One very negative contrast is undoubtedly the economic one. At one end, you see the very rich who seem to drive in their wonderful cars, live in their big homes oblivious to the plight of their neighbors who live in absolute poverty unable to cope with their basic needs. This is a contrast that shows inequitable distribution of wealth in the society.
There are also contrasts in modernity. At one end, you see men and women who are extremely religious, women who wear the veil and men who grow beards and wear a prayer hat. On the other end, there are the modern youth who embraced the western ideas.

Dress code

For a newcomer to Morocco, it is often easiest to take note of contrasts that are immediately and visually identifiable. In fact, one need only spend some time in the well-to-do Agdal quarter and saunter over to Rabat’s medina in the same day in order to see stark contrasts in both modes of dress and general demeanor. One can see women walking comfortably wearing a short skirt and a tank top. Conversely, in the countryside the sighting of a local woman even in daylight is a relatively rare occurrence, and if she is seen, she wears a hijab and is conservatively dressed. Admittedly, this may seem like a natural progression; it is not uncommon in many countries to see more conservative clothing in rural areas as opposed to more relaxed dress in metropolitan cities. However, it is clear that what is considered societally and culturally acceptable differs greatly not only from city to city, but from citizen to citizen.

In Morocco’s unique situation, this can be attributed to its diverse population whose wide-ranging ancestry, religious affiliation, and languages lead to a particularly distinctive and individual-based world-view. Even as an officially Islamic country, interpretations of Islam vary immensely between populations and even households, a result of both Amazigh and Arab presence. From speaking with different people and observing Moroccans, relationships between men and women, gender roles in society, and feminist ideals differ based on family, education, and personal experience.

Diverse heritage

Even though native Moroccans share these diverse heritages, Morocco is further enriched by a growing immigrant culture. Morocco is home to thousands of immigrants, mostly from Sub-Saharan Africa, but also expatriates from the West, the Middle East, and even Asia. While this has created some cultural and political tension, the relative harmony (compared to other countries with rising tensions over immigrant issues) would be fodder for an interesting study on preventing mass violence in response to immigrant and refugee crises.

For Oxford Business Group, Morocco has ben able to transform its cultural legacy into tolerance:vi

“Owing its ancient name to its geographic location, Morocco, also known as Al Maghreb, meaning “the West” in Arabic, boasts a mix of indigenous Berber, Arab, African and European influences. Situated on the western tip of North Africa and the region’s only monarchy, the kingdom has been able to fashion its rich cultural heritage into a tolerant state. A comparatively pragmatic and inclusive approach to social and economic development has allowed it to sidestep the instability that has shaken other neighbours in the region in recent years. A spate of modest political and governmental reforms, alongside a rapidly improving business environment, has allowed the country to expand its influence both in the Mediterranean basin and more broadly on the African continent.”

The diversity in the country is not simply drawn by racial or religious lines, however. One will find a startling contrast between the Sunni Arabs living in the Agdal area of downtown Rabat and the Sunni Arabs living in the vast rural stretches of the country. Even in Agdal, Rabat, one can find Moroccan women wearing blue jeans and tank tops walking next to women in black abayas, complete with a niqab and black gloves. Even within racial and religious subgroups, one will find diversity and contrasting ideas, not just among those of Arab heritage and culture in Morocco, but also among the Amazigh, who are a people of varied languages, customs, and experiences. Their incremental inclusion into Moroccan society is a progressive step to embracing all the diversity of Morocco.

These differences do not hold to be contradictions. They are evidence of a country with a diverse and rich heritage and a constant flow of differing ideas and narratives. They are not contradictions because the existence of one very different segment in Moroccan society does not exclude the existence of another – they contrast, highlighting their differences but also making the relative harmony in which people, so different, live in an absolutely stunning togetherness and cohesion almost proverbial.

While Moroccan’s tolerance for things different is not perfect, Morocco can be an example of what diversity can look like in a Muslim country. This does not make it contradictory. Contradictory means that the harmony does not make sense, that there should not be this much diversity. To suggest this means one is incredulous to the possibility of harmony in a diverse society and can impede the peace process. Diversity does not mean contradiction: it means contrast and can possibly mean problems, but it should be viewed as complimentary instead.vii

Religion

Morocco is a unique blend of culture that can co-exist but contrast, in particular in the area of religion and gender.

In terms of religion, there is no questioning whether Morocco is a religious country, as the King of Morocco, Mohammed VI, serves as both temporal ruler and amir al- mu’minin, Commander of the Faithful, for the Moroccan people. There are many laws in place that reflect shari’a, Islamic law, or gives freedom to still practice Islamic law. For example in the family law, families still have the freedom to practice polygamy, but the man must have permission from his wife before he marries again. This effectively stops a lot of unwanted polygamy, but still allows the tradition if the husband and wife together wish to continue this practice. There are even laws and spaces saved in place to promote women as Islamic scholars and teachers, while not against Islamic religiously is a welcome contrast to Islamic traditions. The Commander of the Faithful puts these laws and change in currents in place, a practice that has allowed to balance the desires and wishes of citizens, but in a way that upholds Islamic culture.viii

While many people in Morocco are considered Muslim, they may not be religious Muslim practicers, even though the ruler is both a religious and political figure. Devout faith is not a mandate to live in this religious country but a choice that can be practiced. There is a strong undercurrent of Arab/Muslim culture in the daily life of citizens, but this does not necessarily mean that every citizen is religiously Muslim but more culturally Muslim.

Gender

Another example of contrast is the conception of gender and appropriate dress. Men dominate the public sphere, talking in cafés and hanging out in the streets in groups, while women dominate the private sphere meeting in homes and hanging out in the living room.ix While this is maintained for the majority of the time, many women work as much as the men. One can see many women working in pharmacies, as police officers, as military, as political spokeswomen, and as teachers in religious and non-religious schools. While it is the norm for women to work inside the home, it is not unusual to see a woman working out in the public sphere as well.

On gender issues, Aida Alami writes in The New York Times:x

« A decade ago, Morocco adopted a family code hailed by women’s rights groups as a big step forward. Three years ago, the country passed a new constitution guaranteeing gender equality. Even so, Moroccan women say that equality is still a long way off, and much of the old order remains untouched, including the inheritance law section of the family code. That law, laid down in the Quran, states that male relatives receive double the inheritance of women.

But the pressure for change is building. “Islam allows for reinterpretation, and it is time for radical decisions to protect women,” said Saida Kouzzi, a founding partner at Mobilizing for Rights Associates, a nongovernmental organization based in Morocco. “This law of inheritance was based on the fact that men were the head of the households, which is not the case anymore as many women are the ones who provide for the family or at least contribute in a significant manner.” »

Along those lines the acceptable dress for women changes often. The general rule is to wear long pants/skirts and a shirt that at least covers the shoulders. A good portion of women in Morocco wear a hijab, however, just as many women choose not to wear a hijab, as well.

Along those lines, not every woman covers herself head to toe put chooses to wear more western clothing. There are realms and spaces where women can wear shorts and tanks, such as at the beach and in clubs, but outside those spaces if seen wearing those clothes it attracts a lot of unwanted male gaze, stares and cat calls. While the men are allowed to wear shorts, and can, and even are sometimes encouraged to, have sex before marriage, however, women are expected to cover-up and stay virgins before marriage. In the cities men and women can be more equal, but outside of cites women tend to have less command of the public spaces. There is a contrast in Moroccan gender roles one just have to compare two different places in the country.

In fine

Morocco is no doubt a marvellous land of contrasts, a magnificent meeting point of western and eastern influences and a land of co-existence and tolerance, unique in its kind. There are so many influences from cultures like America, Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, that have encouraged native people to create their own practical and open culture that picks and chooses what works best for them.

The king is both a religious and political figure, but the people choose freely to practice Islam or not. Women can choose to be conservative in dress and participate in normal female roles, but also can have the independence of working and going to school, as well. That is a lot of choice freedom to pick a way of life for Moroccan citizens but there is always an undercurrent of Islamic heritage running through the country alongside millennial Amazigh substratum reflected in history and traditions and so much cultural and religious tolerance.

You can follow Professor Mohamed Chtatou on Twitter at: @Ayurinu

Selective bibliography:
American University. Morocco: A Country Study. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1985.
Bowles, Paul. Morocco . New York: H. N. Abrams, 1993.
Cook, Weston F. The Hundred Years War for Morocco:Gunpowder and the Military Revolution in the Early Modern Muslim World. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1994.
Findlay, A. M. Morocco . Oxford, England: Clio Press, 1995.
Hoisington, William A. Lyauatey and the French Conquest of Morocco . New York: St. Martin’ s Press, 1995.
McDougall, James (ed.). Nation, Society and Culture in North Africa. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003.
Munson, Henry. Religion and Power in Morocco. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993.
Park, Thomas Kerlin. Historical Dictionary of Morocco . Rev. ed.Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 1996.
Pazzanita, Anthony G. Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara .2nd ed. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1994.
Pennell, C. R. Morocco Since 1830: A History. New York: New York University Press, 1999.
Wagner, Daniel A. Literacy, Culture, and Development:Becoming Literate in Morocco . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Read more: 

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Morocco-BIBLIOGRAPHY.html#ixzz50rYCqIK2

Endnotes:
i. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/07/190879/morocco-the-fascinating-kingdom-of-contrasts-and-contradictions/
ii. https://www.cometothesahara.com/a-country-of-contrasts-a-lay-of-the-land-overview-from-coast-to-desert/
https://www.africanexponent.com/bpost/4520-morocco-the-perplexing-land-of-contrasts-and-contradictions
iii. http://www.crpme.gr/analysis/morocco/coexistence-of-religions-and-cultures-in-morocco
iv. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Morocco-A-true-melting-pot-of-creeds-and-cultures-450908
v. https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21730897-essaouira-sets-example-rest-middle-east-moroccos-little-idyll
vi. https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/morocco-continues-mix-diverse-cultures-and-modernise-state
vii. http://www.ircam.ma/sites/default/files/doc/revueasing/mohamed_chtatou_asinag2fr.pdf
viii. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4899/morocco-model-for-islam
ix. http://www.cndh.org.ma/sites/default/files/cndh_-_r.e_-_web_parite_egalite_uk_-.pdf
x. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/africa/gender-inequality-in-morocco-continues-despite-amendments-to-family-law.html