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

Mattis, Qatar’s Defense Minister Discuss Mutual Security Interests

0
0

US Defense Secretary James N. Mattis welcomed Defense Minister Khalid bin Mohammed Al-Attiyah of Qatar to the Pentagon to reaffirm the strategic security partnership between the United States and Qatar, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said.
Defense Secretary James N. Mattis stands with Qatari Defense Minister Dr. Khalid bin

In a statement summarizing the meeting between the two defense leaders, White said Mattis and the defense minister discussed mutual security interests, including the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, support for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and improvements to Al Udeid Air Force Base in Qatar.

In welcoming remarks before the meeting, Mattis thanked his counterpart for Qatar’s long-standing support of America’s commitment to regional security, including information sharing and counterterrorism efforts.

“Your nation’s continued generous hospitality in Al Udeid Air Base helps to maintain this commitment to credibility by providing a home for the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center and headquarters for U.S. Central Command Forward,” he said.

The base, Mattis noted, provides crucial support for the fight against ISIS and the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

“We must continue to work together to ensure a secure and stable Middle East, as we confront terrorist threats and counter the spread of Iran’s malign influence around the region,” Mattis said. “So today I look forward to reinforcing a lasting U.S.-Qatar security relationship — one that will continue to bolster our efforts against our common security threats.”


Merkel Changes Tune On Nord Stream 2 Pipeline – Analysis

0
0

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has broken with precedent by declaring that Nord Stream 2 cannot proceed without guarantees that Ukraine will keep its status as a gas transit country going forward. Merkel had previously maintained that Nord Stream 2 was strictly an economic project that wouldn’t have undue influence on geopolitical considerations such as Ukraine’s struggle with Russia-backed separatists and the EU’s attempts to diversify energy supplies away from Russia.

Nord Stream 2 is an expansion of the original Nord Stream gas pipeline that runs through the Baltic Sea to Germany, bypassing traditional land transit states such as Poland and Ukraine. Unlike the cancelled South Stream that would have traversed the Black Sea before branching toward Bulgaria and Italy, Nord Stream 2 has survived the recent EU-Russia freeze and persists as a hot-button issue in capitals around the continent.

When completed, the expansion will double the capacity of the existing pipeline, bringing the total to 55 billion cubic meters (bcm). Europe imported some 193.9 billion bcms from Russia in 2017, an increase of 8.1% from the year before. Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned gas pipeline monopoly, provided over 40% of Europe’s supply, though its prices have been depressed due to competition from other suppliers in the United States and the Middle East.

Nord Stream 2 has frequently drawn vocal opposition from the United States, most recently from former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, who declared the pipeline would undermine Europe’s overall security and stability in January of this year.

Eroding Ukraine’s role as a transit country would have obvious geopolitical benefits for Russia. It would harm Ukraine’s already precious fiscal position (the country earned $3 billion in transit fees in 2018), and it would allow for Moscow to brandish the energy weapon without any fear of diplomatic blowback from Europe. Russia sent some 93.5 billion bcm of natural gas to Europe via Ukraine in 2017.

Nord Stream 2 would also give Russia the option of cutting off the energy supplies of other EU member states such as Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Poland. These countries along with the Visegrad states of Hungary, Czech, and Slovakia, have joined together as the most vocal opposition to the pipeline expansion within the European Union. EC President Donald Tusk has also been lukewarm on the project, and has recently been fighting to extend the EU’s regulatory jurisdiction over the pipeline.

The project’s major Western investors are Uniper and Wintershall, Shell, OMV, and Engie. So far a total of 4 billion euros has been sunk into the venture, and construction permits have already been granted in both Germany and Finland.

Up until now, Germany’s Angela Merkel has been one of the strongest voices in support of Nord Stream 2, consistently stressing the project’s purely economic dimension when it was clear to all involved that it would amount to a valuable geopolitical lever for Moscow. The chancellor’s change of heart comes at a strange time. In many ways it’s too late to pump the brakes: construction is about to start and cancelling at this point would incur some hefty termination fees. One interpretation is that Merkel is merely bluffing in order to secure more favorable pricing from Gazprom. Another would be that her new coalition partners are exerting pressure on Merkel’s policies. However, the Social Democrats (SPD) support the pipeline expansion, at least officially. An interesting wrinkle in all this is that former SPD leader and German chancellor Gerhard Schroder now works for Gazprom and has been lobbying hard for increased EU-Russia cooperation, even in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.  It was under Schroder’s watch that the first Nord Stream was approved, and he joined the Nord Stream consortium immediately after stepping down in 2005. It’s also possible that Merkel may be preparing to leverage the Nord Stream 2 issue in order to kick-start a new diplomatic process to resolve the Ukraine stalemate.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

Sri Lanka: No Confidence Motion And The Tamil Vote – OpEd

0
0

I have labeled Sri Lanka as a “failed case of reconciliation” in some of my previous writings. In the immediate aftermath of the end of the war, the Tamil and Sinhala communities were drifting away from one another and stood polarized. The Sri Lankan government’s policy of consolidating national security through militaristic schemes mainly contributed to this polarity. Although the drift was halted to a certain degree under the new unity government, reconciliation did not take place and the communities did not come together.

This theory was reproved when the No Confidence Motion (NCM) against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was defeated in parliament on April 4, 2018. Many Sinhala nationalists seemed surprised by the outcome of the vote on the NCM. The surprised reaction of these individuals and groups was, in itself, surprising to a certain extent, because keen observers of Sri Lankan politics would have not expected the motion to succeed. Two factors are significant in this regard. One, Ranil Wickremesinghe had and currently has an iron grip on the United National Party (UNP) parliamentary group. Hence, sans a major split within the party, hardly any UNP parliamentarian would have voted for the NCM, or against, the prime minister. Two, since the inception, it was clear that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which while representing the minority Tamil people, also serves as the main opposition party, would vote against the motion. In reality however, the TNA is an ally of the government.

Therefore, unsurprisingly, the TNA voted enbloc against the move and virtually saved the prime minister, and his government, from defeat.

Conspiracy Theory

Disappointed by the defeat, many Sinhala nationalists started to promote the theory that the government was saved by the LTTE and Tamil diaspora groups. This is a racist theory and reflects the fact that we, as a nation, have not moved away from conflict paradigms. These groups and individuals are also in the process of promoting the notion that the government will submit to the demands of the TNA and sell out the country to the LTTE rumps. A theory of Ranil-Sambandan Pact, which sounds very much like the once popular slogan of Ali-Koti Givisuma, has been floating around in the Sinhala nationalist circles. This is where I have some serious problems. I believe that those who promote the notion that the government will sell out the country to the LTTE in return for the TNA votes must be kidding themselves, or are promoting this theory as a strategy to win future elections. I do not agree that the Tamils will benefit considerably before the national elections in 2020. In other words, the status quo will continue.

Tamil Support

My critique of this Sinhala nationalist theory has been founded on recent history. The unity government came to power on slogans of democracy, good governance and reconciliation. In 2015, these slogans were extremely attractive to the Tamil community, as many Tamils disliked the Rajapaksa government. During this period, Tamils, especially in the North, complained that they were living in an open prison; perceived and real suppression was that bad. Therefore, they voted heavily for Maithripala Sirisena in the presidential election. For example, in Jaffna Sirisena obtained 74.42 percent votes as opposed to Rajapaksa’s 21.85 percent. Vanni voted 78.47 percent for Sirisena and Rajapaksa managed only 19.07 percent. Tamils (and TNA) played a major role in the formation of the unity government in August 2015.
In return, the government went to the UNHRC and co-sponsored the resolution on Sri Lanka, which the previous government fought tooth and nail. This was a drastic change and many Sri Lankan commentators enthusiastically argued that the country is going to be transformed. It did not happen. The new unity government did not concede anything to the Tamils to the utter disappointment of the Tamil people.

Concessions

While, co-sponsoring the UNHRC (2015) resolution, the government promised four specific actions: (1) reforming the constitution to devolve political authority to the periphery, (2) establishing a truth-seeking mechanism specifically to promote reconciliation, (3) a domestic investigation into the alleged war crimes committed during the last phase of the war, and (4) creating institutional mechanisms, including an office of missing persons and an office for reparation.

No meaningful action was introduced to establish the promised truth-seeking mechanism and to investigate the alleged war crimes, largely due to the fact that they will anger Sinhala nationalist voters. They will not happen in the future either. After a prolonged delay, the Office for the Missing Persons (OMP) was constituted very recently, close to the UNHRC sittings in March this year. One has to wait and see how the OMP goes about fulfilling its mandate. I understand that a piece of legislation has been submitted to establish the Office for Reparation. Reparation should have been an uncontentious issue and could have been effective. Yet, so far, there has been no reparation.

However, the government initiated a process for constitutional reform, which included the transforming of the national legislature into a constitutional assembly, setting up of a steering committee to lead the process, and creation of subcommittees to study various aspects of constitutional reform. The subcommittees submitted their reports sometime back. There has been no growth since then. Today, the process is undoubtedly stagnated and seems almost nonexistent.

In a recent interview to an Indian media, Sambandan argued that the Tamils have made two gains by supporting the unity government: (1) return of private land taken by the military in the North-East to constitute military bases and High Security Zones, and (2) release of Tamil political prisoners. However, it is important to note that these two issues have not been resolved completely. Tamil people are still struggling and mounting protests, almost on a regular basis, to recover land from the military control and many LTTE suspects are still languishing in detention. Notably, Sambandan did not have anything political to show as achievements. The point is that the government had not made any serious concessions in the last three years.

Tamil Vote

What does the TNA do? It continues to prop up and carefully avoids criticizing the government. The party believes that forcing the government would pave the way for Rajapaksa’s return. It seems that the TNA has been terrified by the possibility of Rajapaksa’s return. Reportedly, the TNA’s local government election campaign constituted this argument as a major component. It was this fear that prevented the TNA from insisting on a MoU, which some of us promoted, with the yahapalana coalition during the presidential election. Compared to 2015 and 16, the government is in a much more difficult situation now because of the increasing pressure from the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and Rajapaksa loyalists. Results of the recently concluded local authority election indicate that SLPP is firmly place to win the general election in 2020. Conceding to the Tamils politically will further erode the UNP led coalition’s chances of winning the next election. I am certain that the government will not concede anything to the Tamils in the upcoming two years.

Also, it is important to note the fact that some of the TNA leaders have been coopted into the UNP. Hence, the TNA will continue to support the government without resisting. This is due to the fact that the TNA, and thus the Tamil support, will be automatic and will continue even in the absence of any serious concessions. Why would one concede when the TNA support is already assured? Fear of Rajapaksa’s return among the Tamils will work well for the government. Opponents of the unity government may rest assured that the country will not be sold out by Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Nevertheless, I agree with the conspiracy theorists that the TNA should step down from the position of the main opposition party if it cannot fulfil the legitimate role expected from an opposition party. Right now, the TNA is not fulfilling that role.

The World Before Trump And Making Of US Foreign Policy – OpEd

0
0

The rise of Donald Trump in the hierarchy of the conservative Republican Party and then winning the presidential election was a victory of populism over the establishment. He sold the American people dream of ‘making America great again. He targeting his allies and rivals in similar fashion for undermining US national interests. He alleged the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members were following the policy of free riders. He said Chinese, Indians and Mexicans are taking jobs for American. However, what he acknowledged was that the US is no longer a superpower and his predecessors have failed to fix it. But it is not the good or bad intention of the leaders that determine the course of international politics rather it is the international structure.

As Fareed Zakaria noted in 1992 that it is was not good and bad intentions of Nazi Germany and fascist Japan that determined the faith of international politics, but it was systematic forces that determined the faith of their policies. Trump’s nationalist vision of foreign policy has come to dominate the US foreign policy when the world has already witnessed geoeconomic shift. Fareed Zakeria (2008) in his book Post-American World announced the coming of post-American world order on the eve of the Euro-Atlantic financial crisis.

The US military budget in the post-1990s was greater than combined next 10 powers and as of 2016, it was three times greater than China. It still retains an edge over other great powers in military expenditure, innovation and standard of life. It leads world’s most powerful military alliance of NATO and has military bases more than 800 around the world that provide US capabilities to project its military power.

Yet, in the twenty-first century the new geo-economic realities are redefining geopolitics of Asia. The rise of BRICS and G20 groups as the new informal global multilateral forums is the reflections of this shift. The establishment of BRICS Bank and Asian Investment Bank has confirmed that rising powers are now committed to play a major role in shaping norms and rules of international trade.

Further, the choices are relative. States choose one decision at the cost of other. The geopolitical challenge for US hegemony in the post-Cold War was identified would come from Asia-Pacific region yet US priority became the Middle East. The ‘Asia pivot policy’ was announced in 2008. The part of this strategy was engaging in low cost balancing policy by forging strategic military and trade relationship with India and Japan. The growing trilateral cooperation of US with the two Asian democracies in Asia-Pacific region has much do with protecting multiparty in Asia. In this way, China’s Silk Road diplomacy and Malabar Naval Exercises are an unfolding of the new geopolitical changes.

The Obama Administration’s decision in 2011 to withdraw troops from Iraq was an indication that the US had come to realize the Middle Eastern Wars were the strategic fault. The region has not only consumed US manpower, money and time but also when the US military left Iraq, it was overtaken by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The Middle Eastern crisis provided an opportunity for Russia to demonstrate its military capabilities. It aligned with Iran to restore order in Syria and defeat the ISIS. In the changing regional status quo, the US allies are perceived themselves on the losing end. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia were opposite to US decision to withdraw troops from Iraq. Moreover, the Obama Administration went one step further and joined P5+1 (US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany) negotiation process with Iran on the nuclear deal. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015 which was hailed by the world powers as a triumph of diplomacy.

The deal has protected Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the region and cut the element of deterrence in the Iran-US relations. There is still disagreement between on the future of the Middle East between Iran and US. Iran has witnessed its geopolitical expansion without nuclear weapons also. China and Russia have called the nuclear deal as the victory of their support for Iran. The European Union has also welcomed the nuclear deal and returning of Iran to the international market. India also used this opportunity and signed an agreement to invest US$ 500 million on development of Iran’s Chabahar port situated on the Arabian Ocean.

In the US there was a strong criticism from pro-Zionists to administration for joining Iran nuclear deal. However, the Obama Administration defends the decision that the deal would cut Iranian capacity to enrich the uranium to the weapon-grade level for at least 20 years, which is best for Israeli strategic interests. As Obama replied, his critics in the US Congress that, “can a better deal be found, as opponents claim? Is war the only alternative to the Iran nuclear agreement?”

Another challenge before the US Administration was Korean Peninsula crisis to status The threat of taking strong action by the US did not stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear state. The Six-Party Talks initiated to find the diplomatic solution by China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and US in 2003 failed. N. Korea conducts an underground nuclear test in 2006 and declared nuclear power state. The N. Korea’s Foreign Ministry stated that its “nuclear test was entirely attributable to the US nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure.” Since 2009, Pyongyang has stated it would never return to the talks and is no longer bound by any agreement. It has stated if nuclear disarmament should be carried, it must be reciprocally between North and South Korea and there must be no US nuclear weapons in the region. In the wake of crisis and stalemate, N. Korea continued its nuclear and ballistic missile program. The US has also increased its active military engagement with S. Korea and Japan.

In Europe, Russian President Putin had warned US and EU that Georgia and Ukraine were the red line. During the crisis in Georgia, Russia mobilized its army and established direct contacts with separatists of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in support of their independence. Russia officially recognized both South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states on 26 August 2008. In Ukraine when pro-EU group began to pressure the government, Russia offered US$ 15 billion of loan to the Ukrainian government, but when soft diplomacy did not work, it annexed Crimea in 2014 and supported the rebels in eastern Ukraine. The political reconciliation between East and West Ukraine has been a big regional challenge in Europe.

Russia has expanded its military power across the eastern Mediterranean region by deploying its air force in Syria. Turkey has also joined Russia led Syrian peace process. The improvement in Turkish relations with Russia and Iran has been a valuable geopolitical gain for Russia. The US chose to keep its role limited supporting Syrian Kurds.

On January 2017, Donald Trump entered US President Office. He promised to revisit US policies on trade, immigration, and the Iranian nuclear program in light of US national security and national interests. His cabinet has witnessed many shuffles and finally has brought the men in the administration that support a tough stand against Russia, China and Iran. As expected, Trump-like his predecessors prioritized the Middle East. He appointed his Jewish son in law first White House senior advisor to the president and later the US envoy for Arab-Israel peace process. Trump made his first official destination Saudi Arabia. President Trump made a controversial decision in December 2017 to recognize the East Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Which international community overwhelmingly rejected in both United Nations and UN Security Council.

In August 2017, Trump signed a new sanctions bill passed by Congress, which was meant to punish Russia for its interference in the US election, its annexation of the Crimea and its involvement in eastern Ukraine crisis. Moscow blasted the bill and then told the US to reduce the size of diplomatic staff in Moscow by 755 members. The US retaliated ordered the closure of Russia San Francisco consulate and annexes in Washington and New York. In addition, US targeted 12 Russian state-owned companies and 17 senior Russian Officials in April 2018.

The US has continued block the UNSC resolution to condemn Israel’s policies on occupied territories. Meanwhile, US has threatened to withdraw from the agreement with Iran and has strengthening non-nuclear related sanctions against Iran. While Pyongyang has continued ballistic missile tests. It conducted intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test on July 28, 2017, and hydrogen bomb test on September 3, 2017.

The US response was mostly multilevel by calling the UNSC special secessions, demanding China to pressure N. Korea and cooperating with East Asia allies. In his first address to the UN General Assembly on September 19, 2017, Trump threatens to “totally destroy North Korea”, if the US is forced to defend itself or its allies. He added that the “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” In response, Kim Jong Un called Trump’s behaviour “mentally deranged and asserting that a frightened dog barks louder.” He further stated that Trump’s words “convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is the correct and that one I have to follow to the last.” The US has taken some aggressive measures to address allies’ security challenge which included operational of THAAD missile defence system in South Korea in May 2017 and US BI-B strategic bomber flew near N. Korean cost on September 23, 2017.

In the multilateral forums, except on N. Korean nuclear issue, the Trump Administration was at odds with the international community. On the third days into his administration, Trump withdrew from the negotiation process over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and was followed by in June his announcement that US would cease to be part of Paris Climate Change Program. The resort to nationalist language on domestic economic issues has made US reluctant power to continue the leadership role in international trade and services related issues and seems to be fearing that in multilateral negotiations US might receive unfair treatment.

The US administration announced that it was to address the US$ 500 billion deficit in trade and theft of intellectual property right of worth US$ 300 billion. The US hit the first shot of trade war in April 2018 when White House announced a list of 1,333 Chinese imports to be subject to punitive tariffs of 25 percent. In tit for tat, China has implemented tariffs up to 25 percent on US 3 billion food imports. The US believes Beijing is following unfair restricts on US high-tech services trade and is preparing for second round of tariffs.

In defining the trajectory of US foreign policy, the impact of personalities would be modest in relative to the realities of international politics. As Trump was forced by conditions to modify his initial preference towards Russia. His administration has not taken steps so far to reduce US military overseas commitment. White House has passed the military budget of US$ 700 billion which is one of the highest increase in the US history. Yet according to experts, it is not sufficient amount to meet technological and human resource demands. The Heritage Foundation finds in its 2018 Index of US Military Strength that the US military posture is rated ‘marginal’ and is trending toward ‘weak’.

When we look at the US National Security Strategy 2018, which is Trump’s first NSS, was a departure from past- If there was changed, it was explicitly identified of China, Russia and Iran as the revisionist powers. It envisages that the US will return to ‘principled realism’. By which President Trump has argued for putting ‘America first’ while formulating trade and military intervention policies. Nonetheless, the systematic forces have already reached to a level where the unilateral military interventions will be costlier for the US and unilateral protectionists major in trade will hurt the global free trade system which was America’s own making.

Therefore, it is most likely that the Obama Administration’s ‘Asia Pivot’ legacy would be carried forward by the new administration. The will continue economic engagement with Asia-Pacific region. And in the security realm, the traditional NATO alliance and the newly formed Asia-Pacific quadrilateral strategic partnership with India, Japan and Australia would continue to be the two multilateral mechanisms with which the US will work.

*Mumtaz Ahmad Shah, PhD Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India, Department of Humanities and Social Science

Germany May Underestimate Urgency Of Fixing EU Structural Flaws – OpEd

0
0

The next EU summit in June could be the last opportunity for Paris and Berlin to find a consensus on the EU reforming. This opinion was expressed by Julian Rappold, Senior Policy Analyst at the European Policy Centre, in his article “Germany’s comeback: Worth the wait?” published in a number of foreign media.

“During the six months of tedious negotiations to put a German coalition in place, governments across Europe, and France in particular, have been waiting impatiently for a push for European reform from Berlin. The new coalition agreement between the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the conservative Christian Democratic Party (CDU) and her Bavarian sister party CSU puts Europe high on the agenda, at least rhetorically,” the article says.

However, Angela Merkel may be not ready to invest a sizeable share of her political capital into the implementation of the European reform.

According to the author, during the EU Summit on 22–23 March, leaders did not address the sensitive areas of European reform, namely the governance of the eurozone, migration and asylum as well as security and defence.

“With the new German government only two weeks in power, time was too short for Berlin to develop a consolidated response to President Macron’s reform proposals and to achieve sufficient progress towards joint Franco-German initiatives to stimulate the EU reform debate,” Julian Rappold notes, saying that instead, the European Council dealt with Brexit and responded to urgent foreign policy challenges related to President Trump’s threat to impose new US trade tariffs and Britain’s clash with Russia.

As a result, concrete reform discussions at the highest political level have been postponed to the next summit in June 2018, he says.

“It could be the last opportunity for Paris and Berlin to seize the momentum for reform and re-energise the European project: the window of opportunity is closing again at the end of the year ahead of the European Parliament elections in May 2019,” the analyst stresses.

However, in his opinion, despite the time pressure, there are several reasons why Berlin is unlikely to commit to an ambitious compromise that could pave the way for reshaping the EU.

“The coalition agreement [of German parties] starts with a strong commitment to Europe, but it remains vague and shallow on major issues. The fact that the grand coalition has not drawn any red lines allows the German government more flexibility in finding an agreement with Paris and the other 25 member states. However, it also indicates that the coalition partners have not yet reconciled their diverging positions, especially when it comes to migration and the future of the Eurozone,” Julian Rappold explains.

He also draws attention to the fact that support for Angela Merkel is slowly fading, even within her conservative bloc.

“Her handling of the refugee crisis and the poor federal election result have left the CDU divided over the future course of the party. As it should be Merkel’s last term in office, potential successors will try to take advantage of her slowly eroding influence to challenge her leadership of the party and of the coalition. The CSU will also continue to stir the pot ahead of the elections in Bavaria in October 2018 to boost its conservative profile. The party is therefore likely to call for a strict position on migration and block substantial agreements on the future of the euro area,” the author suggests.

In his opinion, the development and implementation of the EU reform agenda will require a strong impetus from a Franco-German initiative to win broad support.

“President Macron has stressed the significance of Paris and Berlin jointly leading the EU reform agenda. The German government also supports the relevance of the partnership and the need to cooperate, at least in principle. Berlin acknowledges Macron is determined to push through domestic reforms that his predecessors Sarkozy and Hollande have failed to implement. Not supporting him on European reforms, a cornerstone of his political agenda, would leave Macron weakened,” the expert believes.

From his point of view, France and Germany still find it difficult to overcome their long-standing differences and agree to painful compromises despite the awareness of structural flaws in the Eurozone.

“While the German government is ready to initiate some reforms, will it go beyond symbolic gestures? Proposals such as the setting up of a eurozone budget to fund structural reforms, the creation of a permanent European Monetary Fund and the completion of the banking union are on the table. However, the devil is in the detail. Finding an agreement with the right balance between solidarity and responsibility or fiscal discipline and risk sharing remains extremely complex, especially as the German public strongly rejects any kind of debt mutualisation and risk sharing,” Julian Rappold notes.

In addition, he reminds that the reform project will require the consensus with the other EU member states.

“Even if a German response comes soon and Paris and Berlin put forward sizeable reform measures, it is far from certain that they can secure a consensus with the rest of the EU27. Tangible reforms that would help to rebuild trust between member states could be under threat, too. For example, just as Germany painstakingly overcame its lengthy coalition-building exercise, Italy was forced to grapple with renewed political uncertainty following an overwhelming victory of Eurosceptic parties in the national elections,” the analyst adds.

Some policy areas in the EU remain fraught with sharp divides, he believes.

“In the field of migration and asylum, any substantial reform proposal to change the status quo will receive fierce resistance from governments in Central and Eastern Europe. Discontent is also growing on eurozone governance. For instance, a recent statement issued by the finance ministers of the Netherlands and seven other member states made it clear that they have no intention of diverging from the goal of fiscal stability,” the author says.

Overall, in his opinion, the preconditions for an agreement on substantial EU reforms do not seem favourable.

“Chancellor Merkel would have to invest a considerable share of her political capital to overcome the barriers that she faces both domestically and at the European level to strike a deal. In addition, as it presumably is her last term in office, her political clout will be slowly fading, forcing her to prioritise,” the expert stresses.

“Her government declaration in the Bundestag ahead of the March Summit was a first indication that her priority will not be Europe, but rather overcoming the polarisation within German society by strengthening its cohesion. The favourable economic development throughout Europe in the past months and the need to focus on the volatile geopolitical environment, including recent confrontations with the USA, Russia and Turkey, could make Germany underestimate the urgency of fixing the structural flaws of the EU. So yes, Germany is back – but don’t expect too much,” Julian Rappold concludes.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65257-2018

Tough Political Context Not To Affect SPIEF Effectiveness – Analysis

0
0

The key theme of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which will take place in the northern capital of Russia on May 24–26, will be building the relations based on trust. This was reported by the press service of the Roscongress Foundation, which is the organizer of the event.

“The President set the goal of increasing the growth rate in the Russian economy to a level higher than the global average. To accomplish this, investments should amount to 25–27% of GDP. This is a complex task that requires the systemic development of infrastructure and export capabilities, the creation of new convenient financial instruments, the substantial simplification of administrative procedures, and predictable macroeconomic conditions. However, this will not be sufficient if the trust between the public, business, and the government does not attain a qualitatively new level. Therefore ‘building a trust economy’ – the main theme selected for this year’s Forum – reflects one of the most important tasks we face today,” Russian Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin said in his statement published on the SPIEF website.

According to the organizers, discussions within the framework of the business program will be held in four thematic areas: The Global Economy in an Era of Change, Russia: Utilizing Growth Potential, Leadership Technologies and Human Capital in the Digital Economy.

In addition, the SPIEF will host events of the Valdai Discussion Club, the Youth Economic Forum, meeting devoted to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) digital agenda, as well as a panel session New Directions For Trade, Economic And Investment Partnerships With The BRICS Countries, where the participants will discuss priorities of the Republic of South Africa chairmanship in the association.

As expected, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will be attended by representatives from Sweden, Italy, Israel, Vietnam, Greece, the Canada Eurasia Russia Business Association (CERBA).

According to the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA), the kingdom will be sending to SPIEF-2018 the most substantial delegation in the history of the forum: the delegation is expected to include economic ministers as well as CEOs from some of the country’s largest companies, roughly 150 delegates altogether.

Moreover, participation in the forum was confirmed by businessmen and representatives of state structures of African countries, as well as the head of the Japanese government Shinzo Abe.

Analyzing the potential effectiveness of the upcoming event, Stefano Maullu, member of the European Parliament from Italy, Group of the European People’s Party member, expressed the opinion that “the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum is certainly one of the main world’s poles of attractions for business.”

“We must bear in mind that when business is conducted fairly, every stakeholder involved will benefit from it. I expect the SPIEF to grow in importance and in numbers, and hopefully to became a tool of dialogue and fair confrontation between countries,” the politician told PenzaNews.

He also reminded that the relationship between the Russian Federation and the European Union is nowadays challenged by external factors.

“While the cooperation in many fields between Italy and Russia can produce nothing but wellness, other partners of the EU seem to have perceived this proximity as a threat to their own geopolitical agenda. Let me explain it better with an actual example: the Russian gas is, and will remain, the best resource for the European industries. It is indeed a high quality and low price source of energy. The recent gas directive reform which is being discussed in Brussels in these weeks aims to decrease the Russian energy intake to the EU. In the meanwhile, new LNG terminals were built in Europe to receive the liquefied gas, which is more expensive and worse in quality compared to the one from Russia, from other countries that only recently became gas exporters. This is clearly an attempt to further dig the separation between Moscow and Brussels,” Stefano Maullu explained his view.

According to him, economic contacts, including the participation of foreign entrepreneurs in the SPIEF, will improve relations between the West and Russia.

“This is what I’m standing for at the European Parliament, as I strongly believe that economic ties between Europe and Russian, in Eurasian perspective, should be the main goal we all need to achieve in the next years,” the European Parliament deputy added.

Meanwhile, Oleg Prozorov, Director General, the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in the Russian Federation, stressed that the SPIEF “annually brings positive results and contributes to the establishment of international economic relations.”

“Being a long-term official partner of the forum, the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Russia will take an active part in the SPIEF this year. We plan to participate in the work of round tables, intend to sign two important framework agreements with new partners. We, for our part, note the improvement of the business climate, the increase of joint projects and the expansion of those European productions that are already present on the territory of the Russian Federation,” the expert said.

He also stressed that the Chamber of Commerce is a non-governmental organization and “is not distracted by the political agenda.”

“We and our members have an interesting work ahead at the St. Petersburg forum and the upcoming World Cup, as well as very ambitious plans for the second half of 2018,” Oleg Prozorov said.

“If you paid attention to the list of officials who visit the event in the northern capital every year and visit the SPIEF this year, there is no political isolation [of Russia] at all. We must look at the real deeds, look around ourselves and see those positive trends that are there. As Bulgakov’s Professor Preobrazhensky said: ‘Do not read bad newspapers in the morning’,” added Director General of the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Russia, interpreting the famous phrase from the book Heart of a Dog, which in the original sounds “Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner.”

In turn, Anton Friesen, Member of the foreign affairs committee and the committee on humanitarian assistance and human rights of the German Parliament, shared the opinion that difficult relations between the European Union and Russia today are constituted through mutual misunderstandings and divergent perspectives on world politics.

“The Russian political elite still thinks in classic, realistic terms – great power, balance of powers etc., while the EU-elite dreams of a new normative EU-led world order. These different perspectives lead to clashes in real political life. So, the EU is not willing to accept Russian spheres of interest and Russia is not willing to accept EU interference in its own domestic affairs, including human rights and fair elections,” the politician said.

From his point of view, the countries have to find a new language of understanding to solve the security and economic problems.

“Of course, the participation of various foreign companies in the SPIEF can and will strengthen economic relations. So, we already know that, for example, delegations from Canada and Israel will take part in the forum. Last year, over 637 companies and 39 ministries from 26 countries took part in the SPIEF. [According to the press service of the Roscongress Foundation, the form was attended by over 14,000 business representatives, heads of international companies, officials, experts, researchers and journalists from 143 countries, including heads of 700 Russian and 400 foreign companies.] Contracts in value of 31 billion euro were signed. I approximate that this year the sum will be even bigger,” Anton Friesen said.

“Economic contacts will improve the relations between Russia and the European Union. But so will human contacts, including youth exchange and cultural exchange,” the Bundestag deputy added.

At the same time, Ilgar Velizade, Head of the Baku-based South Caucasus Club of Political Scientists, did not exclude the possibility of a boycott of the SPIEF-2018 by some Western companies.

In his opinion, the forum can become a good indicator of the real situation around the economic interaction with Russia of companies that are active participants of the international market.

“Business is often guided by principles and approaches which are different than those of the politicians. The forthcoming forum will show how much these approaches differ or coincide in the case of Russia,” Ilgar Velizadeh explained.

In turn, Evgeniya Voyko, associate professor of the department of political science at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, drew attention to the fact that the SPIEF is an annual business event, the organization of which was not refused even in the most stressful periods, as, for example, in 2014.

“The parties held meetings, signed contracts, but, as we see, it did not change the relationship between Russia and the collective West. There were a lot of economic summits and meetings, but in the political sense they do not have a significant impact on the situation. Participants said that it is necessary to conduct dialogue with Russia and establish relations, but the opinion of the economic elite is different from the opinion of the political elite, which is often looking at what is happening with blinkers on. I am talking about the elite of Europe and the United States: for today, economic cooperation between Moscow and Washington is rather insignificant, and Europeans have become the main opponents of the Russian Federation on the international arena,” the analyst said.

Negative information background, which was diligently created by the West, contributed to the complication of the atmosphere around the event, she believes.

“Nevertheless, there are always companies interested in cooperation with Russia and ready to work with our country, having a certain economic interest. The experience of recent years has shown that, despite a rather tough political context, economic relations continue,” the expert concluded.

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) first took place in 1997 and since 2006, it has been held under the auspices of the President of the Russian Federation, who also attends the event.

Over this time, the SPIEF has become a leading international platform for the discussion of the key economic issues facing Russia, emerging markets, and the world as a whole.

The total price of official agreements signed during the SPIEF-2017, which was held under the slogan The Global Economy in Search of a New Balance, amounted to more than 2 trillion rubles, which is almost double the volume of 2016.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65296-2018

Pakistan To Reduce Regulatory Duty On Import Of Steel Products – OpEd

0
0

It is often said that in Pakistan economic policies are dictate by elites of the elites enjoying majority in the Senate, national and provincial governments. While Pakistan steel has reduced to junk due to nepotism, embezzlements and corruptions, those at the helm of affairs have failed in establishing another steel mill in the country. At the best steel industry in Pakistan comprises of remitting furnaces and the biggest name is Ittefaq group, owned by Nawaz Sharif and his family. Despite ruling Punjab (where more than 65% population of the country lives) for nearly four decades and forming government at federal level for the third time, PML-N has failed in establishing a steel mill in the province having its largest vote bank.

The eople of Pakistan have been constantly ripped off, through imposition of regulatory duty on nearly 50 steel products. The logic behind imposition of regulatory duty is to protect the local re-melting and re-rolling mills, which are highly energy in efficient. In a recent and what appears to be a populist move, the ruling junta has reportedly recommended withdrawal of regulatory duty on 57 tariff lines including 47 steel products in the upcoming budget. The groups having vested interest have already started making hue and cry. Analysts strongly believe that recommendations hold limited chance to get the nod from the legislative on the pretest that approval of these commendations would have serious and wide-ranging implications for the steel sector.

Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, AKD Securities has prepared a report regarding implications of reduction in regulatory duty on steel products, which says, “Apparently aimed at extending relief to the export sector, Commerce division and National Tariff Commission have identified 515 tariff lines for tariff rationalization in the upcoming budget. The proposal also seeks abolition of regulatory duty on 57 tariff lines including 47 steel products and arrived at a conclusion that the decision would have wide-ranging implications for the sector.

The report states that for key players (ASTL, MUGHAL, ITTEFAQ), elimination of 30% regulatory duty on rerolled bars would significantly hurt the pricing power of domestic players. The price differential between imported and local rerolled-bars would shrink to Rs13,000/ton (which currently stands at Rs39,000 per ton). For flat steel manufacturers, regulatory duty on final products (CRC & HDGC) is mere 5%, where removal of the same would further narrow the current low price gap between imported and local products by up to Rs5,000/ ton.

The current low price differential is primarily due to recent rounds of Rupee depreciation, where importers holding 4-6months old inventory are offering the imported products at a discount price. The pricing gap would once again move to the historical average of up to Rs12,000/ton, as importers’ inventory backlog comes to an end. However, this gap is still below price differential of Rs24,000/ ton, when calculated using the imported Chinese CRC prices. While abolishing the regulatory duty could once again stir up competition, brokerage house believes that there are little chance of these proposals getting approved given the rising fiscal imbalance and repercussions on the domestic industry.

ASTL a case study

ASTL has announced BMR of its SITE plant, which apart from costs saving would enhance the plant capacity by 95,000 tons. The BMR activity would cost around Rs2 billion, which the company intends to finance through debt/equity mix of 80/20%. The planned BMR activity requires closure of the said plant for about ten months (Jun’2019 to Apr’2020). Keeping in view the prevailing conditions AKD Securities had revised its earnings estimates due to the closure of SITE plant and high finance cost. Losing 2.6%CYTD, ASTL’s lackluster price performance is attributable to the delay in materialization of expansion project. With Dhabeji plant scheduled to start commercial production from March 2019, investors’ concerns regarding the same should potentially subside, leading to price performance.

In view of the expansion plan, brokerage house has revised its earnings estimates, with downward revision in FY19/FY20 earnings by 10/18% (adjusting for unavailability of SITE plant in FY20 and higher finance cost) and upward revision in FY21/22 earnings by 6/11% (additional capacity of 95,000 tons post completion of SITE expansion).

Dhabeji expansion to commence operations by end Mar’18…. After 14 months delay due to phase II expansion, Dhabeji plant that amplifies ASTL’s melting/rolling capacity by 2/2.3x is expected to start commercial operations by end Mar’18. The company plans to fully utilize the Dhabeji plant first before operating SITE plant.

ASTL in Nov’17 revealed its plan to enter into towering business through a joint venture with the Chinese company “Qingdao Huijintong Power Equipment Company Ltd (HJT)”. The proposed venture (Amreli-Huijintong pvt Ltd) would include the production and sale of transmission towers, entailing total investment amount of Rs1.67 billion. As per company management, the proposed venture has hit snags due to issues between the partners.             .

ASTL’s lackluster price performance is attributable to the delay in materialization of expansion project. With Dhabeji plant scheduled to start commercial production from this month. Investors’ concerns regarding the same should potentially subside, making room for price performance. On a competitive landscape, ASTL is well positioned compared to immediate peers, as its expansion is coming online at least one year ahead of competitors. However, substandard substitutes that make up to 60% of the market and entry into northern market remain key competitive challenges for ASTL post expansion. ASTL’s strong brand image and quality may help in beating the competition.

Who Are Spain’s Business Angels And What Do They Like?

0
0

Spanish business angels are coming of age: they now have more transactions and years of experience behind them. In addition, two out of three previously held high-level managerial roles or launched a startup themselves.

This is the profile sketched by the 2018 report on business angels by professor Juan Roure and Amparo de San José, director of IESE’s Business Angels and Family Offices Network.

The third edition of the study highlights that industry knowledge and disruptive technologies are two key elements when it comes to assessing angels’ investment opportunities. The social impact of potential investments is not a significant factor (yet).

Also according to the report, the technologies deemed to have the greatest disruptive potential over the coming years are blockchain, other advances related to fintech, and pretty much everything associated with mobility and the connected car.

The research, conducted in collaboration with the Spanish Association of Business Angels (AEBAN for its initials in Spanish), also reveals that just 8 percent of angels are women, as low a number as seen in previous reports.

Profile of the Spanish Business Angel

The typical Spanish business angel is increasingly similar to his counterparts in the United States and in other countries where angel investing has been around much longer. Below are some of his defining characteristics.

More mature: Three out of four angel investors are between 35 and 54 years old, with an increasing number over 55.

Longer career:
A growing number of angels have more than 15 years’ experience, although the percentage who just started investing within the past five years is still above 40 percent.

More active:
2017 was the most active year yet, with 90 percent of the pool of angel investors making at least one investment in the last calendar year. That was 8 percentage points higher than in the previous report.

With a more diverse portfolio:
The report notes a positive trend in portfolio diversification, with an increasing number of angels holding more than five investments. That said, the majority have between one and five active investments — a manageable number.

A broader sphere of influence: The classic local investor has made way for a more expansive outlook. The number of investors channeling their funds into just one city in Spain dropped dramatically from 12 to 2 percent, according to the current study.

Less financing in reach: Only 29 percent of those polled allocated more than 100,000 euros annually to investment in startups — compared to 36 percent for the previous year and 60 percent two years ago. Half allocated funds to increasing their positions in existing investments.

Interested in ICT:
More than half of Spain’s business angels are investing in information and communication technology (ICT) and software. Digital businesses and distribution channels are also favored.

And also in offline startups: Despite the fascination with ICT, more than half of Spanish business angels were also investing in offline startups. And in a quarter of those cases, offline investments made up at least half of their investment portfolio.

With higher valuations: The average valuation of seed and startup projects funded climbed to 2.5 million euros, compared to 912,000 euros in the previous year.

Seeking company: Business angels prefer not to invest alone. Rather, they invest jointly with other angels, work with VC funding or via family offices.

And trusted sources: When it comes to receiving new projects, angels say they trust, above all, their friends and partners (26 percent) and their networks of business angels (25 percent).

Slower to disinvest: The percentage of interviewees who had not yet cashed in on investments was 64 percent in 2017, compared to 62 percent the year before. Of those 2017 exits, about 60 percent were positive, with gains — a 5 percentage point increase over 2016.

Methodology, Very Briefly

This report is based on 172 valid responses to an 18-question questionnaire sent to a representative group of active angel investors in Spain via AEBAN networks and associations.


How the Guardian Newspaper Fulfills George Orwell’s Prediction Of ‘Newspeak’– OpEd

0
0

On Sunday April 15th, Britain’s Guardian bannered “OPCW inspectors set to investigate site of Douma chemical attack” and pretended that there was no question that a chemical attack in Douma Syria on April 7th had actually occurred, and the article then went further along that same propaganda-line, to accuse Syria’s Government of having perpetrated it. This ‘news’ story opened [and clarificatory comments from me will added in brackets]:

UN chemical weapons investigators were set on Sunday to begin examining the scene of a chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma, which had prompted the joint US, French and British strikes against military installations and chemical weapons facilities near the capital, Damascus.

The arrival of the delegation from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) came as the Syrian military announced that it had “purified” [no source provided, but thisfrom 7 March 2018 is the only source that existed prior to the April 14th missiles-invasion of Syria, and its meaning is very different: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://sana.sy/fr/%3Fp%3D113016&prev=search] the region of eastern Ghouta, of which Douma is a part, after a two-month campaign that killed nearly 2,000 civilians [no source provided as regards either the number, or that all of them were ‘civilians’ and that none of them were jihadists or “terrorists”], following years of siege.

The propaganda-article continued directly:

“Units of our brave armed forces, and auxiliary and allied forces, completed the purification of eastern Ghouta, including all its towns and villages, of armed terrorist organisations,” the general command statement said.

No source was provided for that, but this sentence is a sly mind-manipulation, because here is what the Syrian Government’s General Command had actually said: “Statement of the Army General Command declaring Eastern Ghouta clear of terrorism” as headlined by the Syrian Government itself.

In other words: the Guardian’s ‘journalist’ had substituted the word “clear” by the word “purify” and did this after having already asserted but not documented, that the Government had just completed “a two-month campaign that killed nearly 2,000 civilians.” When the Syrian Government announces that an area has been “cleared of terrorists (or of terrorism),” the U.S.-allied propagandist uses the word “purify,” such as “purified the region of eastern Ghouta” or “the purification of eastern Ghouta, including all its towns and villages, of armed terrorist organisations.” But by the time that the reader gets there to “purification … of armed terrorist organisations,” the reader has already been doctrinated to believe that Syria’s Government is trying to “purify” land, or perpetrate some type of ethnic-cleansing. That’s professional propaganda-writing; it is not professional journalism.

Later, the article asserts that, “The OPCW mission will arrive in Douma eight days after the chemical attack, and days after the area fell to the control of Russian military and Syrian government forces. That delay, along with the possibility of the tampering of evidence by the forces accused of perpetrating the attack, raises doubts about what the OPCW’s inspectors might be able to discover.” However, a fierce debate is being waged over whether this was not any real “chemical attack” but instead a staged event by the jihadists in order to draw Trump back into invading Syria. In other words: any journalistic reference yet, at this time, to the event as “the chemical attack” instead of as “the alleged chemical attack” is garbage, just as, prior to the guilty-verdict in a murder trial, no journalistic reference may legitimately be made to the defendant as “the murderer,” instead of as “the defendant.” That is lynch-mob ‘journalism’, which Joseph Goebbels championed.

The Joseph-Goebbels-following ‘journalist’ has thus opened by implying that the Russia-allied Syrian Government is trying to crush a democratic revolution, instead of the truth, that the U.S.-allied Governments are trying to overthrow and replace the Russia-allied Syrian Government. It’s a big difference, between the lie, and the truth.

Another story in the April 15th Guardian was “Pressure grows on Russia to stop protecting Assad as US, UK and France press for inquiry into chemical weapons stockpiles” and this one pretended that the issue is for “Russia to stop protecting Assad,” who is the democratically elected and popular President of Syria, and not to stop the invasion of Syria since 2011 by U.S. and Saudi backed foreign jihadists to overthrow him. Furthermore, as regards “press for inquiry into chemical weapons stockpiles,” the real and urgent issue right now is to allow the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into Douma to hold an independent and authoritative investigation into the evidence there. Russia pressed for it at the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. and its allies blocked it there. But the OPCW went anyway — even after the U.S.-allied invasion on April 14th — and this courageous resistance by them against the U.S. dictatorship can only be considered heroic. Now that they are there, the remaining jihadists in Douma are firing shots at them to drive them away.

That type of ‘news’-reporting is virtually universal in The West, among the U.S. and its allied governments, which refer to themselves as ‘democracies’ and refer to any Government that they wish to overthrow and replace by their own selected dictator, as ‘dictatorships’, such as these regimes had referred to Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria forever, and Ukraine in 2014. It’s Newspeak.

*Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010. This article was originally posted at strategic-culture.org

Israel Continues To Block And Sabotage Peaceful Settlement In Syria

0
0

It is well known that Israel has been supporting the so-called opposition operating in Syria in order to overthrow the legitimate government of Bashar Assad since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011. Another of Tel Aviv’s goal here is to gain full control over the Golan Heights, which Prime Minister B. Netanyahu is currently using to provide the militants from Syria with weapons.

Besides, the fighting jihadists striving to break the war-torn country are receiving medical care in Israeli hospitals. “Israel has been always stood by our side in a heroic way,” confirmed Moatasem al-Golani, the spokesman for the rebel group Liwa Fursan al-Joulan also known as Knights of the Golan. “We wouldn’t have survived without Israel’s financial assistance, food and weapons supplies.”

To be noticed is that the Israel Defense Forces have set up special paramilitary training camps, both in terms of imparting military, paramilitary and terrorist skills and as an opportunity for radical indoctrination. According to Inside Syria Media Center’s military correspondents on the ground, the Israeli military has been providing weapons and ammunition as well as intelligence support and a full-scale air support.

Thus, Israeli AF (IAF) have carried out more than 100 airstrikes on Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Army’s positions. Moreover, the IAF have intensified their activity by conducting an air attack on the Syrian airbase T-4 on April 9, and also on the Ash-Shayrat and Ad-Dumayr air bases on April 17, 2018.

Furthermore, there has recently appeared new evidence of Israel’s increasing supplies to the radicals affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA). This assistance mainly consists of providing arms and weapons as well as money to buy ammo at the black market.

Local activists report that in late March – early April the contacts have intensified between the Israeli intelligence officers and the representatives of the Syrian armed groups acting in the area of Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The Israelis handed over to the militants some bags, boxes and cases, contents unknown, probably ammunitions, medicine and food rations.

We may propose it was the next batch of the so-called help to the Syrian militants controlled by Israel. Tel Aviv, thus, seeks to maximize the support in order to get them ready for an offensive of the Syrian troops and Lebanese Hezbollah in the south of al-Quneitra Governorate.

Obviously, by supplying opposition groups in southern Syria, Israel aims to block and sabotage not only the peaceful settlement of the conflict but also the demilitarization of the Syrian-Israeli border in the Golan Heights in accordance with Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria.

*Sophie Mangal is a freelance writer and a member of the Inside Syria Media Center.

LUKOIL Commissions Gas Processing Plant In Uzbekistan Ahead Of Schedule

0
0

LUKOIL on Thursday commissioned a Gas Processing Complex at the Kandym fields cluster in Uzbekistan. The official opening ceremony was attended by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev, Minister of Energy of the Russian Federation Aleksander Novak, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Uzbekistan Vladimir Tyurdenyov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Uzbekistan Kwon Yong Woo and the President of PJSC “LUKOIL” Vagit Alekperov.

The construction of the Kandym Gas Processing Complex was completed exactly two years since its start and eight months ahead of the schedule set by the President of Uzbekistan. Around ten thousand people were involved in the construction, while over two thousand permanent working places are created with the launch of the Complex. In total, around three thousand people are employed by LUKOIL in Uzbekistan with over 90% of them being citizens of the Republic.

The new Gas Processing Complex with the annual capacity of eight billion cubic meters of gas is designed to convert gas from the Kandym fields cluster to marketable gas, stable gas condensate, and marketable sulfur. There are 77 wells drilled and a gas gathering facility established at the Kandym field cluster. The commissioning of the Complex will allow to launch the pre-drilled wells at the field and achieve the projects’ plateau production level within a short timeframe.

“In Uzbekistan we highly appreciate and value strategic partnership and alliance type of the relationships with Russia built on trust, mutual support and benefit, and consideration of common interests. The agreements reached at our high-level meetings gave momentum and opened new possibilities for future action-oriented cooperation between our countries. Russia has been traditionally our largest trade and investment partner. Our key strategic long-standing and life-tested partner is LUKOIL, one of the leaders in the global energy sector”, President Mirziyoyev said.

​Russia’s Minister of Energy Aleksander Novak read out the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin’s welcome message to the participants of the Kandym Gas Processing Complex opening ceremony.

“The delivery of this sophisticated, technologically-intensive project was possible due to the coherent productive work of specialists from Russia and Uzbekistan, expert managerial decisions of LUKOIL’s executives and its partners from neighbourly Uzbekistan. Built with the use of the advanced technological solutions and factoring in the most up-to-date health, safety and environmental protection requirements, the new Gas Processing Complex will become one of the largest in Central Asia”, President Putin said in his welcome message.

Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev sent his congratulations with the launch of Kandym Gas Processing Complex.

“The launch of the Kandym GPC is another evidence of the ample opportunities for Russia-Uzbekistan partnership in the energy sector. I would like to highlight the substantial contribution of Russian investor – LUKOIL in the development of humanitarian projects in the Kashkadarya and Bukhara regions. These projects addressing children, among others, are of important significance for the relationships between our countries in the future”, Dmitry Medvedev said in his welcome message.

In his speech, President of PJSC “LUKOIL” Vagit Alekperov thanked the Republic of Uzbekistan’s leadership for the rendered support.

Iran’s Ayatollahs Cannot Evade Rising Tide Of Opposition – OpEd

0
0

It was forty years ago almost this time of the year. It was right after the end of Nowruz holiday on the occasion of the Iranian New Year and I was leaving our high school in a major street in central Tehran near Tehran University. As I got closer to the gates of the University, sounds of chants attracted my attention. I will never forget the first time that I heard “Down with the Shah” chant.

The anti-government protests had begun a few months ago in some other cities including Qum and Tabriz. But things looked normal in Tehran. But as history quickly showed, was only the surface. My family was quiet well off living in good neighborhood north of capital but we had relatives living in south Tehran and cities around the country so visiting them had me aware that there are people living in not desirable conditions, and I knew that there was a secret police “SAVAK” which was despised by everyone including my father who had once been summoned and cautioned for speaking against one of the regime’s officials at a family gathering.

To me who had watched the Shah’s state dinner for President Jimmy Carter on national TV on December 31, 1977 and hearing President Carter’s remarks in praising Shah calling Iran “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world,” it was very interesting and asking myself are these demonstrations and chants signs of what they call an island of stability, and those differences in living conditions are normal?

I left Iran the following autumn and went to the UK, but kept following the events closely every day. And the rest was history. On February 11, 1979 the Shah who used to say “monarchy, is the blessing of the divine which has been entrusted to him and his family” was toppled and with that the monarchy in Iran was buried forever.

And the West was totally lost. I remember vividly how the UK Foreign Office to the very last weeks in total delusion thought the Shah can weather the storm and save the peacock throne.

Tragically, a genuine uprising against a corrupt regime was derailed by a despot, Khomeini who exploited lack of democratic process and the people’s religious sentiments deceived the Iranian people who demanded freedom and democracy, and established a ruthless theocracy in Iran. And so far as the international community was concerned, despite heavy presence in Iran totally misread the Iranian people’s sentiments and desire for freedom and changed and did not see the storm that was coming.

The ayatollah’s rule brought devastation and misery for the Iranian people and made this great civilization and international pariah.

Now fast forward forty years. This spring there is a smell of another major change in Iran in the air.

Iran was scene of major anti-government protests in December and January that pervaded throughout the country and shook the regime to its core. From what I saw this also took the pundits in the West by surprise.

The protesters clearly expressed their desire for a regime change by slogans like “Down with Khamenei”, And this time around very much similar to 1978, the youth and the women played a pivotal role.

Ali Khamenei the regime’s supreme leader, in a televised speech in the holy city of Qom on January 9, said that the protests were organized by the People’s Mojahedin organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The MEK has been the prime victim of Tehran’s rule by iron feast for the past four decades. It is the key component of the National Council of Resistance of Iran coalition led by Maryam Rajavi who has articulated her platform for a future Iran in a 10 point plan.

And this is all happening at a time when there is a big debate in Washington on Iran policy on whether to adopt a firm policy of seek complacence from the ayatollahs. This has reached a new peak upon the appointment of John Bolton as the new National security Advisor of the US President.

The West should have learned its lessons and not be caught in its delusions. The ayatollahs are besieged with crisis. There is growing unrest. Even the most apolitical strata of the Iranian society such as the farmers have started to stage protests and strikes. Despite the nuclear agreement the Iranian economy is faltering. Corruption is rampant and Tehran seems incapable of distancing itself from sponsoring terror and fomenting unrest and havoc in the region. They are predicates to one conclusion: The status quo is untenable and Iran is moving toward big change fast.

This time the West should side with the Iranians in their call for freedom and think of what might have been thought unthinkable the previous Nowruz, an Iran without the ayatollahs at power.

*Nasser Razii, an Iranian-born human rights and political activist based in London. His CV includes working with Members of Parliament, media and think tanks on behalf of the Iranian opposition and community. He has followed the developments in the Middle East for the past three decades with a special focus on Iranian opposition, human rights, terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Turning Qatar Into An Island: Saudi Cuts Off Its Nose To Spite Its Face – Analysis

0
0

There’s a cutting-off-the-nose-to-spite-the face aspect to a Saudi plan to turn Qatar into an island by digging a 60-kilometre ocean channel through the two countries’ land border that would accommodate a nuclear waste heap as well as a military base.

If implemented, the channel would signal the kingdom’s belief that relations between the world’s only two Wahhabi states will not any time soon return to the projection of Gulf brotherhood that was the dominant theme prior to the United Arab Emirates-Saudi-led imposition in June of last year of a diplomatic and economic boycott of Qatar.

It would also suggest that chances are minimal that the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that groups Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain alongside Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE would revert to its role as a regional integrative body. So do unconfirmed reports that the UAE plans to follow in the kingdom’s footstep and build a nuclear waste site of its own at the closest point to its border with Qatar.

UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash appeared to confirm the Saudi plan, gloating on Twitter that Qatari “silence on the canal project is proof of their fear and confusion.”

The message that notions of Gulf brotherhood are shallow at best is one that will be heard not only in Doha, but also in other capitals in the region. The 200-metre wide, 20-metre deep channel would erase a border that has been closed since the imposition of the boycott and was unlikely to re-open any time soon.

Built a kilometre from the Qatari border, the channel would be able to accommodate merchant and passenger ships of up to 295 metres long and 33 metres wide, with a maximum draught of 12 metres. Adding insult to injury, the nuclear waste dump and military base would be on the side of the channel that touches the Qatari border and would effectively constitute a Saudi outpost on the newly created island.

The plan, to be funded by private Saudi and Emirati investors and executed by Egyptian firms that helped broaden the Suez Canal, also envisions the construction of five hotels, two ports and a free trade zone.

The $750 million project would have the dump ready for when Saudi Arabia inaugurates the first two of its 16 planned nuclear reactors in 2027. Saudi Arabia is reviewing proposals to build the reactors from US, Chinese, French, South Korean contractors and expects to award the projects in December.

The Saudis’ cutting-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face aspect kicks in with the fact that the channel would not only destroy Qatar’s one land border and create a glaring symbol of regional division rather than integration.

It would also draw a dividing line between two interpretations of Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim worldview developed by Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, an 18th century preacher, at a time that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has vowed to return the kingdom to an unidentified moderate form of Islam.

Qatar’s more liberal Wahhabism of the sea contrasts starkly with the Wahhabism of the land that Prince Mohammed is seeking to reform. The crown prince made waves last year by lifting a ban on women’s driving, granting women the right to attend male sporting events in stadiums, and introducing modern forms of entertainment like, music, cinema and theatre – all long-standing fixtures of Qatari social life and of the ability to reform while maintaining autocratic rule.

As a result, the Saudi plan to physically separate the kingdom from Qatar cuts it off from the most logical model for Prince Mohammed’s plan to ween the kingdom off adherence to the most restrictive form of Wahhabism that has shaped Saudi history since the late 18th century and constituted the legitimizing basis for the creation of the modern Saudi state.

A traditional Gulf state and a Wahhabi state to boot, Qatari conservatism was everything but a mirror image of Saudi Arabia’s long-standing puritan way of life. Qatar did not have a powerful religious establishment like the one in Saudi Arabia that Prince Mohammed has recently whipped into subservience, nor did it implement absolute gender segregation.

Non-Muslims can practice their faith in their own houses of worship and were exempted from bans on alcohol and pork. Qatar became a sponsor of the arts and hosted the controversial state-owned Al Jazeera television network that revolutionized the region’s controlled media landscape and became one of the world’s foremost global English-language broadcasters.

Qatari conservatism is likely what Prince Mohammed would like to achieve even if that is something he is unlikely to acknowledge. His initial measures – lifting the ban on women’s driving and attending male sporting events; rolling back the powers of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice or Mutaween, the religious police; and his introduction of long forbidden forms of modern entertainment – are in line with the conservatism of Qatar or for that matter the UAE, even if the Emirates do not share a Wahhabi heritage.

Qatar’s advantage has been that it projects the ability to change without completely dumping ultra-conservative religious precepts that have shaped culture and belief systems. It projects a vision, like the one Prince Mohammed is pursuing, of a less restrictive and less choking conservative Wahhabi society that grants individuals opportunities irrespective of gender.

“I consider myself a good Wahhabi and can still be modern, understanding Islam in an open way. We take into account the changes in the world,” Abdelhameed Al Ansari, the then dean of Qatar University’s College of Sharia, a leader of the paradigm shift, told The Wall Street Journal in 2002.

Without doubt, Prince Mohammed’s social, economic and religious reform drive constitutes recognition of changes needed to turn the kingdom into a cutting-edge 21st century country and ensure the survival of his family’s autocratic rule.

However, if built, the channel would suggest that geopolitical supremacy has replaced ultra-conservative, supremacist religious doctrine as a driver of the king-in-waiting’s policy. It’s a message that graphically projects division and polarization rather than regional cooperation and exploitation of synergies.

India-Pakistan: Negating Nuclear Bluff – OpEd

0
0

The war of words between India and Pakistan’s militaries prove that both South Asian nuclear states are intertwined in a traditional security competition. Indian Army Chief Gen. Bipin Rawat, while delivering the annual Army dinner, stated:”We will call the (nuclear) bluff of Pakistan. If we will have to really confront the Pakistanis, and a task is given to us, we are not going to say we cannot cross the border because they have nuclear weapons. We will have to call their nuclear bluff.”

Such statements of calling the ‘nuclear bluff’, ‘increased cross- border firing by Indian forces, which coupled with the proclamation of surgical strikes can lead to crisis instability in the region.

Director General Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Asif Ghafoor responded to the Indian army chief’s ‘nuclear bluff’ assertion by saying that such statements are unbecoming from a person of a responsible stature. He further stated that “Well, it’s their choice. Should they wish to test our resolve they may try and see it for them..…Pakistan’s credible nuclear deterrence is the only thing stopping India from a war.”

Such statements by the Indian military officials, and a quick calculated response from Pakistan, have raised the concerns of security analysts regarding the regional security and strategic dynamics.

It could be an appropriate tactic of General Bipin for securing finances for the modernization of the Army, but an absurd and destabilizing statement for the strategic stability in South Asia. According to the analysts, such statements by Indian military officials can lead to crisis instability and force the Pakistan to hasten its evolution towards war fighting nuclear doctrine. Another alarming reality is that General Bipin has failed to realize the repercussions of misreading Pakistan’s nuclear weapon capability and too much confidence in India’s Cold Start Doctrine. Hence, Pakistan’s successful test of the ‘submarine-launched cruise missile Babur (SLCM Babur)’ can be viewed as a befitting response to India.

According to Pakistan’s Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), Babur is submarine-launched cruise missile with range of 450 km. It was fired “from an underwater dynamic platform” and “successfully engaged its target with precise accuracy; meeting all … flight parameters”. The development of Babur (SLCM) is a significant component of a “credible second-strike capability” and a step towards reinforcing Pakistan’s policy of Credible Minimum Deterrence through self-reliance and indigenization.

Previously, on January 9, 2017, Pakistan conducted its first successful test of indigenously developed submarine launched cruise missile Babur-III. Babur-III is also advanced, mature and indigenously developed series of cruise missiles. The First test of Babur-III was considered by Pakistan’ security planners as a major milestone and a right step in right direction towards reliable second strike capability. After the successful test of Babur-III, Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, while congratulating the nation and the military on the first successful test-fire of the Submarine Launched Cruise Missile stated: “The successful test of Babur-3 is a manifestation of Pakistan’s technological progress and self-reliance.”

He added: “Pakistan always maintains policy of peaceful co-existence but this test is a step towards reinforcing policy of credible minimum deterrence.” Therefore successful test of Babur-III, submarine launched cruise missile finalized the triad of Pakistan’s nuclear forces and second test of Babar on March 9, 2018 has enhanced Pakistan’s deterrence based on Second Strike Capability.

Another significant factor which forced Pakistan to acquire Second Strike Capbility is India’s doctrinal transformation as it is clearly transforming its Nuclear Doctrine. New trends are emerging in India’s nuclear strategy as it is moving towards a ‘first-use’ or even a ‘first-strike nuclear strategy’. India’s nuclear doctrine is based on the ‘strategic ambiguity’, therefore it has been anticipated that India is shifting its nuclear strategy towards ‘counterforce targets’ rather than ‘counter value targets’. The second emerging trend is that India is moving towards the strategy of “First Use” or “Preemptive strike” from the “No-First Use strategy”.

The abandoning of no first-use, development of missiles defense shield, fake claims of surgical strikes and calling the nuclear bluff are developments that are perilous for the regional security. Indeed, such events have forced Pakistan to maintain deterrence through qualitative and quantitative developments in nuclear forces. In the strategic landscape of South Asia, the presence of Pakistan’s credible second-strike capability is imperative for the continuity of the strategic stability between/among strategic competitors: India and Pakistan.

Subsequently, harsh statements by Indian military, its shifting nuclear doctrines and maturing sea based/ballistic missile defense developments capabilities are threatening for Pakistan. Such developments by India have been countered by Pakistan by carrying out two tests of nuclear-capable missiles, ‘Babur-3’ submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) and ‘Babar’.

Pakistan’s tests of SLCM has further reinforced the debate on South Asian maritime security, second-strike capability and missile defense technologies in the regional landscape. To conclude, it’s impossible for the Indians to alter the strategic equilibrium between India and Pakistan. Though Islamabad is not matching the Indian conventional military buildup, yet it is gradually advancing its nuclear arsenal. Hence, Pakistan’s successful test of indigenous Submarine Launched Cruise (SLC) Missile ‘Babur’ has negated India’s desire to call Pakistan’s ‘nuclear bluff’ and has augmented the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence strategy. The addition of ‘Babur’ in Pakistan’s military inventory confirms that Pakistan armed forces are prepared to thwart any kind of Indian armed forces military adventurism.

*The writer is currently working as Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute and can be reached at asmaakhalid_90@hotmail.com

John Bolton As NSA To Affect Pakistan? – OpEd

0
0

Despite the triumphs Pakistan has had in curbing terrorism, the US National Security Advisor John Bolton doesn’t believe that Pakistan is internally strong enough to thwart an assumed Islamist takeover of the state.

President Trump on March 23 announced in a tweet that he was removing H.R. McMaster from his post of National Security Advisor and that John Bolton would take over on April 9, 2018. In any event, President Trump’s arrangements of Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, to head the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) respectively, aren’t sufficient of an omen, appointing John Bolton as the new National Security Advisor (NSA) solidifies that his foreign policy is going to wind up more forcefully than ever. Bolton will fill in as Trump’s third advisor after Michael Flynn and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

Moreover, Bolton is one of the supposed ‘many people’ who believe that Pakistan’s security agencies are under Islamists’ influence, a suspicion that then manages the US narrative on Pakistan which resultantly paints Pakistan not as a ‘non-NATO’ ally but rather as an adversary; the main cause behind its failure in Afghanistan.

The Bolton account, as is apparent, fits pleasantly into India’s worldwide pro-terrorist projections of Pakistan. Not only will it add to Pakistan’s long list of issues at the international level, for example, the threat of being blacklisted by FATF, in addition it will be instrumental in tilting the regional balance of power in favor of India.

Moreover, it is clear that John Bolton thinks differently about China-Pak ties, as he believes that the US may end up gifting Pakistan to China if the US keeps on putting excessive pressure on Pakistan to do more. He rather suggests in his article for the Wall Street Journal, that the US should utilize its leverage on China to induce Pakistan to ‘sever ties with terrorists and close their sanctuaries. The Trump administration should make it clear that Beijing will face consequences if it does not realize its massive interests in support of this goal.”

Unmistakably John Bolton, particularly like President Trump, needs to squeeze Pakistan; however, he wouldn’t like to do as such by forcing sanctions on Pakistan or by removing the military aid. Rather, his approach is to take action by utilizing India in its strategy of isolating Pakistan and by pressing its significant partner, China.

And whilst John Bolton doesn’t rely on pushing Pakistan too hard, the reason isn’t that he is understanding of Pakistan’s triumphs and forfeits but since he thinks pushing too hard would actualize Pakistan’s assumed control by the terrorist outfits. In an interview given in August last year, he stated: ‘If you push Pakistan too hard, this government in Pakistan is fragile. It has been since the partition of British India. The military in Pakistan itself is at risk, increasingly, of being infiltrated through the officer ranks by radical Islamists. Many people believe the intelligence services unit already is heavily dominated by Islamists.’

In a nutshell South Asia is in a critical need for a careful approach and policy reevaluation from the US government. Be that as it may, if there is one individual with the ability to keep away from disaster, it is simply the President himself. Regardless of whether President Trump has the will to persuade his new team to take part in diplomacy over war-plotting, yet remains to be seen. It is, in this manner, up to Islamabad to ponder the most significant reaction to the possible outcome. Pakistan may only be able to neutralize Bolton’s hostility by drawing him into tactful diplomacy. Any other plans to the contrary, including reciprocating that animosity, are probably going to backfire.

*Ubaid Ahmed works as Research Associate in Strategic Vision Institute. He can be reached at Ubaid@thesvi.org


Syrian Bombing By US And Allies Unacceptable – OpEd

0
0

The civil war in Syria for over six years now has been prolonged mainly due to the interference in the internal affairs of Syria by Russia and US and it’s allies. It is well known that Syrian government has been receiving direct support from Russia and the rebels fighting in Syria have been receiving direct and indirect support from US and it’s allies. Perhaps, the civil war in Syria between the government and the rebels would have ended long back in one way or the other, if Russia and USA have refrained from showing interest in the unrest in Syria.

In the last few weeks, there have been reports that Syrian army has been making gains over the rebels and entering their strong hold, which made it look that the Syrian government will have it’s way and the rebellion movement will be crushed.

One would find it difficult to conclude whether Syrian government is right or the rebels have legitimate stand, in view of the conflicting claims and allegations. However, the ground reality is that the economy of Syria has been shattered and thousands of innocent Syrians have lost their lives and many Syrians have suffered injuries crippling their lives, apart from the Syrians who ran to other countries as refugees.

Are there chemical weapons in Syria?

All of a sudden , in the last few days, news has been floated that chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian civil war, though Syria and Russia denied this. Photographs have appeared in several media showing the children in Syria hit by chemical weapons and how attempts were made to protect them. However, the Syrian government has called such photographs as fake and stage managed. One would never know.

In any case, US and allies carried out missile attacks at three locations in Syria, justifying their action by saying that such attacks were needed to eliminate the chemical weapons. British Prime Minister has claimed that there were no other motives for missile attack and it was only to protect the innocent civilians in Syria, pointing out the international regulation that ban the use of chemical weapons.

In this scenario, one cannot forget that US bombed Libya a few years back claiming the use of chemical weapons in the civil war there. Later on, US and allies claimed that weapons of mass destruction were stocked in Iraq and used this as an excuse to attack and bomb Iraq, which resulted in elimination of Saddam Hussain from the scene. Later on, investigation by United Nations proved that there were no evidence of stocking of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Neither US nor it’s allies expressed regret for attacking Iraq on the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction , which were not found.

In the case of Syrian bombing, many people would wonder whether US and it’s allies are using the same strategy that they adopted in Iraq, to spread false news about the use of chemical weapons in Syria and use it as an excuse to attack Syria. Nobody would think that leadership of US and it’s allies would not indulge in spreading false information to suit their convenience and justify their actions.

Though Russia and Iran have said that they would retaliate against US and allies to support Syrian government , this may not really happen and Russia may really be satisfied by launching a war of words. In the present circumstances faced by Russia where it’s economy has several weak spots  it certainly cannot afford direct confrontation with US and allies.

Pot calling the kettle black

The claim of US and allies that missile attack on Syria is necessary to protect the life of innocent citizens in Syria is like the scenario, where the pot calls the kettle black. The fact is that US itself has large stock of chemical weapons and perhaps, the largest quantity possessed by any country in the world.

The fact is that US and allies have totally bypassed the United Nations Organisation and assumed that they have the right to police the world by themselves. UNO looks like a pathetic organization and nothing more than an academic discussion forum, with no country taking it seriously any more. Certainly, US and allies have significantly contributed to the act of belittling the UNO.

It remains to be seen as to whether chemical weapon stock has been really destroyed in Syria by the missile attack and whether any citizens have lost their lives due to such bombing.

US and allies vulnerable

In any case, such attack is not going to improve matters and would only make peace more difficult to achieve in Syria. Probably, US and it’s allies would have to face more threats of terror attacks on their soil in the coming days by armed militia ,who would try to take vengeance for the bombing of Syria.

After unwittingly allowing huge influx of Islamic refugees in Europe and with the possibility of the terrorists having smuggled themselves as refugees , Europe has now become highly vulnerable. Demographic changes are taking place at alarming rate in Europe and steep increase in population of muslims in UK with the number of mosques steadily increasing has been pointed out as an indication of the demographic changes taking place.

Are US and allies planning in vacuum?

Obviously, US and its allies cannot just rest, thinking that they have established their superior power by bombing Syria at their will. In the process, US and European countries may face retaliatory attacks from within.

One is not sure whether US and its allies have done their calculations carefully. They may not have really achieved anything worthwhile by bombing Syria. Are they planning in a vacuum?

Falstaff By Guiseppe Verdi Playing At Istanbul Süreyya Opera House

0
0

The Istanbul State Opera and Ballet began to play on stage Giuseppe Verdi’s last masterpiece “Falstaff” opera. Your writer had no ticket on the last night, so he waited at the entrance of Süreyya opera on the evening of April 13 and purchased two tickets from an opera watchers group at the last minute.

The opera was based on William Shakespeare’s “The Merry Women of Windsor” and “Henry IV”. Giuseppe Verdi’s last masterpiece” Falstaff “premiere started at the Kadikoy Sureyya Opera Theater on Saturday, April 7th.

The librettos of Falstaff, were written by Arrigo Boito. The opera was first performed in Milan in 1893. It is first on stage on our homeland. There is no overture music. The curtain opens and we find ourselves suddenly in the flow of events.

The work is known as one of the world’s toughest operas in terms of staging and musical work. the theme is in the 14th century England. Fatty Falstaff is one of the most entertaining characters created by Shakespeare. He is married and tries to seduce two good friends Alice Ford and Meg Page at the same time.

While writing the opera, Guiseppe Verdi, was deeply influenced by German composer Wagner. There are no easy-to-remember Italian melodies in this opera. The only melody you can mumble with is only in the last act. The opera is over and you are leaving the final curtain mumbling.

Renato Bonajuto is the stage director of the work. Opera is performed in Italian. Conductors Roberto Gianola and Can Okan alternate with the orchestra. The choreographer is Paolo Villa. Decor design by Efter Bronze, costume design by Ayşegül Alev, light design realized by Yakup Çartık.

Işık Belen, Kevork Tavityan, Caner Akgün, Alper Göçeri, Murat Güney, Caner Akın, Ahmet Baykara, Çağrı Köktekin, Can Reha Gün, Engin Yavuz, Göktuğ Alpaşar, Ali Haydar Taş, Şebnem Ağrıdağ, Ayşe Sezerman, Deniz Yetim, Dilruba Akgün, Özgecan Gençer, Sevim Zerenaoğlu, Aylin Ateş , Deniz Likos, Nesrin Gönüldağ, Barbora Fritscher Hitay, Elif Tuğba Tekışık, are performing alternately in this opera.

We see four beautiful young women on stage. Farsifall character was performed unique. The male characters were playing with great fun. The staging was brought to the end of the 19th century. Decor was balanced, with room wide open for play, the costumes were beautifully designed. At the last act, stage was very crowded.

We understand that the work has been rehearsed hard, nothing to leave to improvise during the staging. Each mimic, motion, play was very carefully pre-tailored.

The Falstaff opera is being performed on 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 24 and 25 April.

At the entrance gate you may always purchase a return ticket. In Süreyya opera, an incredibly beautiful work is staged and it is absolutely recommended to watch.

Confronting Russia In Syria – Analysis

0
0

Aired in the US, the April 10 BBC World News telecasts, repeatedly opened with the claim that Russia vetoed a proposed UN resolution to inspect the area of an alleged chemical attack in Syria. Later on, in the same telecasts, there is a contradictory and downplayed reference to a Russian proposed UN resolution (on the issue at hand) that was vetoed. The aforementioned contradiction is in line with Anglo-American mass media telecasts, stating an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government, followed later on by the hosts and guests in (overall majority terms) referring to the claim as a fact, with little if any opposition.

In conjunction with being fair and balanced on this subject, good journalism would detail the differences between the aforementioned UN resolutions, inclusive of competent analytical input from individuals with truly diverse views. That’s the kind of setting which is typically not evident in the geopolitically correct TV news entertainment industry, that heavily slants in favor of anti-Russian leaning views. A rare exception is Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

Far from being monolithic, the UN is subject to biases. Going back to the Cold War period, it was commonplace to hear pro-Israeli supporters in the US complain of biased UN resolutions and UN departments which slanted against the Jewish state. This sentiment lingers on. In the post-Soviet new world order, one finds some predominating biases against Russia at the UN. A point that relates to Russia’s stance on investigating the recently alleged chemical attack in Syria. It has been said that history has a way of repeating itself.

Scott Ritter and some others have noted that Saddam Hussein’s apprehension with the UN inspection of WMDs in Iraq had a reasonable basis. Some of those involved with that investigative process appeared to be influenced by the desire to seek a regime change agenda against the then Iraqi leader. Within Anglo-American foreign policy elite circles, this preference was noticeably prevalent back then – inclusive of seeking inspectors with intel ties, who would acquire non-WMD information, that could be strategically used to militarily overthrow the Iraqi government. In Syria, the rebels have possessed the capability for initiating a chemical attack, and stage scenes to conform with their agenda.

Once again noting (from prior correspondences of mine) the stunt from years ago, with the Kuwaiti diplomat, conjuring up the fake claim (using staged video footage) that Iraqi forces were taking babies off incubators in Kuwait. That incident brings to mind others, like the fake evidence, false claim of Iraq having WMDs, a Brit court finding, saying the Russian government “probably” poisoned Alexander Litvinenko (never minding his Italian friend, who was arrested for arms smuggling and who was also infected with polonium, along with Litvinenko’s ties to anti-Kremlin propagandist Alexander Goldfarb) and the latest suspect claim of Russian government involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals – along with two prior suspect claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

The April 10 UN Security Council meeting on the subject of chemical weapons in Syria, underscores the differences between Russia and the leading Western powers. On the previous day, the very same body had a lively discussion that (among other things) brought into play the history of Russia, the US and UK.

In reply to Nikki Haley’s churlish remarks, her Russian UN counterpart Vasily Nebenzya, said that Russia didn’t seek becoming America’s friend. Upon further review, I believe he specifically meant the likes of Haley, as opposed to Americans at large. Nabenzya stated that a true friendship doesn’t involve doing whatever the greater power wants – something which Haley has been on clear record for advocating.

Regarding this very issue, the UK’s UN Ambassador, Karen Pierce noted a close, friendly US-UK relationship. Historically speaking, that hasn’t always been the case. Relative to the US, compare the Russian and UK positions during the American Revolution, American War of 1812 and American Civil War. In addition, note the US assistance to Russia during the Crimean War, when the latter fought against Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire.

In other instances, Britain, the US and Russia found common cause during two world wars. Russia and Britain were earlier allied against Napoleon. Foreign affairs isn’t (at least in many instances) pragmatically gauged in terms of a “friend”, as clearly favored by the Brit statesman Viscount Palmerston, who said that Britain has interests as opposed to allies – a more mature approach to Haley’s simplicity.

The likes of Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, simplistically say that Russia’s strength in Syria is too limited to scare off a definitive US led strike. Kilmeade downplays what Russia could do with its arsenal not in Syria. Neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters, will view a militarily weak Russia (relative to a substantial US attack on Syria) as a means of gradually reducing Vladimir Putin’s popularity in Russia.

At play, is the potential for a kind of modern day Cuban Missile Crisis. Just before the most recent Trump administration led bombing of Syria (which included France and the UK), there was reported bluster from Russia’s ambassador in Lebanon – something that Western mass media has featured, along with Donald Trump’s threatening tweet. Shortly afterwards, calmer and practical views have been expressed within US mass media and the Trump administration. That attitude was shown by the limited US led strikes, which included a statement by the US, UK and French governments, saying that the action wasn’t intended to overthrow the Syrian government.

The Trump administration, its UK and French allies and some others, caution against any future use of Syrian government chemical weapons. Significantly omitted from this pronouncement, is whether the Syrian government has actually used such – an observation that takes into consideration other possibilities. Specifically, the use of chemical weapons by the rebels and/or that group staging a future chemical attack, for the purpose of having the Syrian government blamed.

The Western bombing regime change operations in Iraq and Libya didn’t bring greater stability to these nations. My October 9, 2015 commentary “Answering Russia’s Critics On Syria” remains coherent and relatively in line with the US, French and UK statement about not attempting an armed regime change operation in Syria. It’s not paranoid to believe that their military operation against the Syrian government is motivated in part by the desire to confront Russia. The claim of militarily acting against the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons comes across as having a window dressing aspect.

This past Saturday, One America News reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Vladimir Putin asked his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, to forward information of his (Macron’s) claim that France has proof that the Syrian government recently used chemical weapons. According to Lavrov (as quoted by One American News), Macron declined, saying that it involved a “secret” mechanism. On that same day, another Anglo-American media source (pardon my not recalling for sure which one) said that the French proof at issue is exclusively from social media. Lavorv noted this to the BBC’s Stephen Sackur.

(On the subject of Macron, it was earlier claimed that the Russian government meddled in the last French presidential election against him. This claim was rebuffed by the head of France’s cybersecurity agency – something very much downplayed in Western mass media, unlike the typically unchallenged claim of Russian meddling in that French vote.)

This past Sunday morning, CNN had a propaganda segment, featuring Spider Marks and Samantha Vinograd. Marks approvingly said that the Trump administration led strikes significantly diminished the Syrian government’s capability to launch chemical attacks – adding how Assad can “butcher” his people with other means. Marks uses different prose when describing the not too distant mass killing of civilians in Iraq (following the US government led attack on that country). There has been a comparative lack of coverage to the civilian deaths in Yemen, involving US ally Saudi Arabia. It’s extremely disingenuous to hold Russia and/or the Syrian government exclusively culpable for the deaths in the Syrian Civil War, which includes unsavory behavior among the rebels. Marks’ upbeat view of the significance of the Trump administration led bombing campaign has been reasonably contradicted elsewhere.

During this past Saturday’s UN Security Council meeting, the Syrian representative said that the bombed Syrian science and research center, had been recently inspected by the Organization for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons, with nothing shady found. At that discussion, there was no follow-up contradiction to that comment.

In 2016, Barack Obama informed Jeffrey Goldbreg, that the claim of a Syrian government sarin gas attack in 2013 isn’t a “slam dunk”. US Secretary of Defense James Mattis concurs, adding that the same holds true of the chemical attack claim on the Syrian government in 2017. Mattis has been rather restrained with the latest claim against the Syrian government – initially not going along with it – only to later say there’s now enough evidence without providing such. Theodore Postal is among other sources, which haven’t accepted the claims of Syrian government involved chemical attacks.

Of late, there’ve been Western mass media TV segments with people who say they were victims of the most recently alleged Syrian government chemical weapons attack. The segments have been brief, without much, if any critical follow-up. Is it possible for some bombing victims to experience a non-chemical attack, while experiencing some (stress some) symptoms that are typically evident in a chemical attack? Meantime, Western mass media continues to downplay the charge of phony pro-rebel propaganda.

Though perhaps doubtful, more time will hopefully provide a clear answer to what actually occurred, vis-à-vis the latest allegation against the Syrian government.

*Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article is a condensed version of two articles, which initially appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on April 13 and 17

Yemen: Religious Persecution Of Bahá’i Practitioners – OpEd

0
0

While writing this piece, I am quite distressed about the systematic persecution of the Baha’i minority members in Yemen. Besides the tussle between two warring parties in Yemen, what is more deplorable is their implications on religious minorities including Jews, Christians, and particularly the Baha’i community which is being regularly persecuted for just practicing their faith. This goes not only in complete contradiction to the United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1948 but also against the true Islamic principles of governance and justice.

The significant pressure that has been brought to bear on the Houthis and the Iranian authorities by the Arab and non-Arab world in recent months has, no doubt, stayed their hand an even prompted some Houthis to engage in dialogue with the Baha’is to end the persecution. However, as of this penning this piece, a number of Baha’is remain imprisoned in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, after four years of their arrests, detentions, and continuous torture by the Houthis. Most tragically, the death sentence against Hamed Bin Haydara, one of the Bahá’í practitioners, has been issued along with an order for the confiscation of all of his assets and the dissolution of this religion’s institutions and the banning of its activities. Mr. Haydara’s death sentence remains to be repealed.

Notably, Bahá’i practitioners in Yemen, as in other parts of the world, are known for being committed to rules and regulations of the country and are working for peace and pluralism in the society. But given the Houthi leadership’s continued coercive actions, thousands of Baha’i practitioners are vulnerable to disastrous consequences in Yemen.

It is high time that the world governments in general and Muslims around the world in particular speak out to condemn this nefarious case of religious persecution in a supposedly Islamic country. Several countries have raised voices of objection to the persecution against the Yemeni Bahá’ís, demanding the cancellation of the death sentence for Hamed Bin Haydara. But sadly, no Muslim country is coming to the fore to speak for the religious peaceful coexistence in Yemen on behalf of the imagined global ‘Ummah’.

If we Muslims desire the full protection of the human rights for the world’s Muslim minorities as an ‘Ummah’, we must ensure that the non-Muslim citizens living in the Muslim majority countries are accorded the same rights and privileges that we Muslims seek to achieve in the non-Muslim nations. In order to achieve this, I would like to offer concrete solutions and final recommendations derived from the Madina Charter of Human Rights (Misaq-e-Madina)—the first ever written constitution of the world formulated by the Muhammad (peace be upon him).

It is noteworthy that the constitution of Madina also known as Misaq-e-Madina was compiled when the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his companions migrated to Madina as an oppressed minority. It was the first social contract to be written ever in the history of mankind. Muslims and the non-Muslims lived under this covenant which organized the public affairs and governed the relations between them and their neighbors, as Ibn-Ishaq reported:

“The Holy Prophet (pbuh) wrote a document between the Emigrants [from Makkah] and the Ansar [the natives of Madina], and in it he made a treaty and covenant with the Jews, establishing them in their religion and possessions, and assigning to them rights and duties.”

The charter of Madina focused on these pivotal cornerstones for a nation or governance: (1) peace and security (2) Justice and (3) organizing the judiciary.  It reads:

“In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Holy Prophet, governing the relation between the believers from among the Qurayshites (i.e., emigrants from Makkah) and Yathribites (i.e., the residents of Madina whose majority were non-Muslims). They form one and the same community as against the rest of peoples. (Source: Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, no. 16808 and see the whole constitution in Ibn Katheer’s biography, part 2, page 321, and Ibn Hisham’s, part 1, page 501.)

The concept of Ummah or a “nation” through the terms of the Madina constitution clearly states that the Muslims or non-Muslims whether from Makkah or Madina are one community. It states clearly: “They form one and the same community as against the rest of men!”Thus, the Islamic charter f human rights recognized the “nation” for the first time in the history as a one indivisible unit, moving from the individual or the tribal life to the life of the single nation which was not characterized by any particular religion, racism or tribalism.

The Madina charter of human rights ensured “equal rights and duties” between its parties and by this it ended racism and segregation in one go. It stated:

“The Jews shall be responsible for their expenses and the Believers for theirs… The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery… The Jews of Banu Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa’idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu Tha’labah, Jafnah, and Banu al-Shutaybah enjoy the same rights and privileges as the Jews of Banu Aws…”

Thus, the Madina constitution affirmed the full bonding between the Muslims and non-Muslims based on justice and equity. This equality was based on the common value which is termed in the Islamic law as ‘Karamat-e-Insani” (human dignity). Allah states in the Qur’an:

 “We have honored the children of Adam, and have borne them on the land and the sea, given them for sustenance things which are good and pure; and exalted them above many of Our creatures.” (Qur’an 17:70).

It also stated that its terms apply on those who have signed it and those who shall follow them later and fight with them (whether Muslims or non-Muslim) and by this it is the first treaty in the history that acknowledges the principle of joining treaties even after they are signed (Madina Treaty – Context and Significance” by Ahmad Al-Shuweibi, issue 110 from the Al-Ummah Book issued by Al-Awqaf Minstry, Qatar).

After the Holy Prophet (pbuh) departed, his companions followed his footsteps and so Umar Ibnul-Khattab signed a treaty with the people of Illia called “The Omarian Covenant” which stated among its articles:

“In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful. This is the security that Omar gives to the people of Illia. He gives them security for themselves, their monies, their churches, their crosses, their sick and ailing, and all their peoples. Their churches won’t be taken over, won’t be destroyed, won’t be reduced in size, neither will their crosses, their wealth, neither will they be persecuted because of their faith nor will any of them be prejudiced…“(Taareekh Al-Tabari, 436/4)

A great number of companions were witnesses to this covenant like; Khaled Ibnul-Walid, Amr Ibnul-Aas, Abul-Rahman Ibn-Awf and others; which means that they all accepted the content of the covenant.

Same thing was done by the Holy Prophet’s companion, Hazrat Amr Ibn A’as with the people of Egypt, Utba Ibn-Farqad (appointed by Hazrat Umar Ibnul-Khattab) with the people of Azerbaijan, as Al-Tabari wrote in his encyclopaedia of history.

Not only Muslims, even all non-Muslims living in Madina state of the  (pbuh) were accorded full protection of life, religious freed and democratic rights. A clause in Misaq-e-Madina was stipulated in these words of Holy Prophet (Hadith): “I shall dispute with any Muslim who oppresses anyone from among the non-Muslims, or infringes on his right, or puts a responsibility on him which is beyond his capacity or takes something from him against his will.” (Reported by Abu Dawood)

In the 10thyear of Hijrah, a delegation of 14 Christian chieftains and bishops from Najran came to Medina to enter into a treaty with the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Prophet (pbuh) not only welcomed them with open arms but also permitted them to pray in his mosque, the Masjid-e Nabawi. The Christian delegation prayed in the Holy Prophet’s mosque, turning towards the east, their Qibla or direction of prayer. This glorious instance of the Holy Prophet ’s religious tolerance cannot be discarded by any Muslim sect, as it has been authenticated by numerous erudite Islamic scholars of great repute, including Imam al-Qurtubi (in his Tafseer Jame’ Li Ahkamil Quran), Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jauziya (in his book Zadul Ma’ad), and Imam Ibn Kathir (in his Tafseer Ibn-e Kathir).

Similarly, a Christian delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to the Holy Prophet (pbuh), requesting his protection. The Prophet (pbuh) granted them a Charter of Human Rights, which is recorded in the Islamic history as the written document for the protection of minority human rights and respect for other faiths.

But deplorably for Muslims living in the so-called Islamic countries, they have diverted from the right path shown by the Prophet (pbuh). The worrying incidents of the faith-based discrimination against the Yemeni citizens are symptomatic of not only a humanitarian crisis but a systematic religious persecution. This is not only a clear violation of the Yemeni Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights agreements, but a brazen violation of the Prophet’s beautiful cultural heritage. The legacy of diversity, pluralism and coexistence that has shaped the Misaq-e-Madina’s peaceful clauses has eroded almost each and every Muslim country today.

*Regular Columnist with Newageislam.com, Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi is a classical Islamic scholar and English-Arabic-Urdu writer. He has graduated from a leading Islamic seminary of India, acquired Diploma in Qur’anic sciences and Certificate in Uloom ul Hadith from Al-Azhar Institute of Islamic Studies. Presently, he is pursuing his PhD in Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. This article was published by New Age Islam.

The FinTech Revolution And The Banking Industry – OpEd

0
0

FinTech is transforming the banking industry and granting millions of people access to financial amenities for the first time, as a result of new banking models that are evolving with FinTech startups. Technology companies are becoming the face of the banks and the traditional bankers are getting limited backend utility providers. In this article we will discuss how FinTech is revolutionizing the banking industry, what will be the future banking models and our business schools and universities are preparing future bankers for these changes.

Henri Arslanian, a FinTech thought leader says that, “we are going to one of the biggest transformation in financial history the FinTech revolution and it is going to transform banking. This revolution have significant impact on financial industry, it is reshaping the industry and the future bankers will be very different from the bankers of today. They will have different personalities, educational background and different skill sets”.

“Fintech” stands for financial technology, is the innovative use of technology in the design in delivery of financial services and its transforming the banking mode, things from artificial intelligence, peer to peer lending, big data, block chain, crowdfunding, digital payments, and robot advisers.

Why is it happening now? Historically as technology involved the banking industry it was reasonably good and integrated these new technologies to better serve customers. But all of that changed during the financial crises of 2008, banks were busy in dealing with a disaster situation, frequent new rules, regulatory requirements, and fines imposed upon them. Innovation became very important, at the same time some of the most game changing technological innovations, they have transformed the way we live. They have become part of our everyday life just think about iPhone, Uber, WhatsApp for example. The gap created at that time what your banks were offering you and you as customers expecting from your banks especially from user experience and convenience perspective. And that gap is what the FinTech industry is tackling with that now.

That gap was so big that even nontraditional banking players decided to jump in and capturing this opportunity mainly technology firms. Such as Facebook have taken 50 different regulatory license as Facebook Payments Inc., these licenses that would allow Facebook users to transfer money via the messenger app in different states of USA. Amazon offering student loans and other financial services from its platform, Ali Baba’s financial arm and financial launch a money market fund they have become the third biggest money market fund in the world. That fund have more than 150M investors, who have an average investor less than a thousand dollar each, many of them have their first investment ever. Tencent QQ Messaging app has become most of the common source to transfer money. It not only allows you to buy insurance products or invest in funds directly from your smart phone but also but also book your next doctor appointment, order a taxi, donate to charity, and even find a date where ever you live.

The financial platforms of the future won’t be traditional banks, but more along the lines of technology firms. My one-year old son in the future will probably open a bank account not with standered charted, ABL, HBL or UBL, but rather with a Facebook or Apple. These technology firms have daily existence touch points with customers, and to certain extent they have customers trust and confidence. If you are comfortable enough to share your family photos on Facebook or WhatsApp, what is to stop you from also using them to transfer money to your friends and family.

If you buy all your daily necessities on Amazon, Alibaba or Draz.pk, you could also buy insurance products using their platforms. There now thousands of new and dynamic FinTech startups, they are offering products, which used to be offered previously by traditional banks, and which are being replaced by peer-to-peer lending platforms that now offers consumers and alternative to loans that used to be previously available mainly at banks. Robot advisory platforms offer consumers asset management solutions that are not only more transparent in what they charging, but also substantially cheaper.

It’s very unlikely that you will see the FinTech startup becoming deposit taking institutions where the actual assets are held, but they will be very happy to control the front end, while leave the boring backend to traditional bank things like reconciliation, regular reporting etc. In this may have created the new banking model of the future where traditional banks are handling the backend basically becoming utility providers to the technology firms and FinTech startups who control the front end and customer experience.

This FinTech revolution is also bringing a lot of other positive developments one of the most important being financial inclusion. Currently in the world we have more than two billion people who are completely unbanked — these are individuals who have no access to bank accounts, no way to borrow money, and they only have a way to save their money in their pillows or under their mattresses. Now, for the first time in the history of the modern age we are able to offer these individuals financial services. This is the positive difference that according to the World Bank in the last five years, seven hundred million people went from being unbanked to being banked. And this is just the beginning as the FinTech industry is continuously working on transforming financial services are being delivered and consumers will be the biggest beneficiaries.

The banking landscape is changing and to survive banks will need to evolve and adopt FinTech in the design and in the delivery of their financial services. Future bankers will be designers, programmers and creative thinkers.

There is a point of concern, however, in that  our business schools and universities are not developing future bankers, but rather still focusing on traditional bankers — an area that it is estimated will see a reduction of between 20% to 30% in the not too distant banking future. As such, we should plan accordingly if we want to survive in future. Our universities should start offering courses on FinTech, financial designing, and financial programming to compete in future.

*Mazhar is a senior digital banking and microfinance and development finance expert, holds a MBA degree in Marketing, certified in microfinance (Distinction) from Institute of Bankers Pakistan, development Finance from World Bank Group, and has a 12 years of experience in main stream banking, digital banking and development financing.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images