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

Security Dilemma: Arms Racing And Alliance Formation – OpEd

0
0

The term “Security dilemma” explains a condition where two or more countries are trapped into disputes and conflicts, primarily due to their national security that ultimately lead them to war. Basically, the situation of security dilemma takes place when two countries feel insecure vis-à-vis each other and simultaneously increase their respective defence and weapon systems. Involved states do not want to start war but they keep themselves busy in developing diplomatically, militarily and resort to weapon modernization to make them more safe, secure and protected.

Case Study: South Asia

In order to understand the basic fact that security dilemma creates fear and alliance formation, the article will focus on the case study of India and Pakistan’s adversarial relationship. It generates a model armed security dilemma including the production and development of nuclear technologies, enhanced sort of arms racing and the interchange of national objectives / policies for deterrence and deterrence. Here one can see that the security dilemma is operational in nuclear subcontinent. The arms race between India and Pakistan is deeply rooted in regional conflict phenomena. The fact lies in the ultimate development of their nuclear and conventional capabilities, which is the expression of their security concerns. Both countries are facing numerous security challenges which largely result in security dilemma.

Rationale for Stepping Ahead

India carried out its first nuclear test in 1974, which revealed its ominous intentions. It was apparently a civil nuclear test however it transformed into the next crucial step for Pakistan’s security. Pakistan rightly perceived it to be a big threat to its national security after which it was compelled to go nuclear by hook or crook. That was the only way out for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons for deterrence perspective. So, in order to justify the threat posed by Indian arms buildup, Pakistan reacted and developed a policy of nuclear ambiguity. Both countries conducted their nuclear tests wherein after India’s nuclear test Pakistan’s government at that point in time highlighted that “Pakistan’s failure to respond in kind would have made it vulnerable to its aggressive neighbor”. Security dilemma is the situation in which state perceive the security of other state as its insecurity. Same is the situation of nuclear sub-continent. The speech of Sharif government has proven that for security, it was necessary for Pakistan to go for nuclear weapon capability. Resultantly, Pakistan’s verdict to go nuclear after the Indian so-called peaceful nuclear tests was the result of security dilemma.

Similarly, the nuclearization of Indian Ocean primarily by India, became a major concern for Pakistan as it has disturbed the strategic balance of power and increased the sense of insecurity. Both states are involved in conventional, missile and nuclear arms race to intensify their security concerns and to create a deterrence impact on each other however these vice versa actions of developing more and more nukes has given birth to insecurity between both. So, both states are increasingly entangled in the web of security dilemma and disturbing balance of power.

Effecting States Decisions

Security dilemma plays a central role in arms race among the states, even those states that have fundamentally well-matched goals can still get involved in such a competition. Countries engage in arms race in order to achieve ultimate superiority. Arms races have both positive and negative impact and it usually occur come into play when internal and external factors cause a state’s decision to arms race.

There are two Indian ambitions that coerce Pakistan to remain involved in its up-gradation of weaponary, one, to develop more and more along with maintaining a conventional gap between India and Pakistan’s military build-up that would be asymmetric in nature, two, to sustain the Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD). Such complementary objective increases security dilemma and propels an extensive arms race in the region further generating insecurity in the preservation and action of strategic equilibrium and the conventional military in the South Asia region. The Indo – Pak conventional asymmetry, missile race and nuclear arms race is among the most worrisome matters for the international politics today.

Implications for the Region

Indo-Pak arms race competition carries strong negative implications for the region that includes instability in region, risk to use nuclear weapon, disturbing balance of power, increasing security dilemma, economic deprivation, instability and civil wars, threat to human security etc.
Potential for arms race instabilities is always there, since both India and Pakistan are busy in building up their respective military capabilities, fissile material stocks and more sophisticated and enhanced missiles capabilities. India is also actively working on BMD systems, which would force Pakistan to introduce both quantitative as well as qualitative improvements in its arsenal. The India-US nuclear deal coupled with rapidly advancing fast breeder program has opened up vast new potential for India to substantially increase its fissile material stockpiles. It increased the security dilemma and has made Pakistan to follow action-reaction syndrome, which has historically determined the nature and direction of India-Pakistan relations. This factor has also been instrumental in the hardening of Pakistani position with regards to Fissile Material Cut- off Treaty (FMCT) negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) at Geneva.

Alliance Formation

Likewise, the security dilemma leads to alliance formation as Pakistan did in the time of War on Terror (WoT) which became a serious challenge for Pakistan at that time. Pakistan served as an important strategic partner of the US in its War on Terrorism which later became the global war on terror. Pakistan has been the US strategic partner before this incident too; it was not the first time where the two had been a close ally.. Simultaneously, Islamabad to attain either its own economic, political and security requirements has always been voluntarily accessible to the US resulting into alliances and strategic partnership between them.

The security dilemma is evidently at play when one observes the case of Indian membership of the Nuclear Export Control Regimes. It is a fact that India got membership in Australia Group (AG), Wassenar Arrangement (WA) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), while the only one left is its Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership from which it already got waiver through the Indo-US nuclear deal. Following suit, Pakistan applied for the NSG membership, which if it had not and if India had acquired the membership, Pakistan would have left outside the cartel, losing access to the civil nuclear trade as India would have definitely vetoed it. It is relevant to mention here that NSG decisions are based on consensus. An element of fear and alliance formation (diplomatic efforts for getting the NSG membership) is very clear from this example too. Summing it all up, it is very clear that how security dilemma of a state creates fear which ultimately leads to a never ending arms race and alliance formation.


Russia Creates Unique Social Platform To Exchange Views With Africans – OpEd

0
0

On October 22, the first Russian-African Social Forum, organised jointly by the World Association of Foreign Alumni of Russian Universities and African Business Initiative Union, was held in Moscow. More than 500 people participated: prominent Russian and African political and public officials, representatives of academic circles, the business community, and representatives of student and youth organisations.

The event provided a unique platform to exchange views on the current issues of relations between Russia and African countries, the current state of relations and the prospects for further development in the political, trade, economic, humanitarian and cultural fields, among others.

In his address as a keynote speaker, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov acknowledged the significance of the forum and stressed that it would be impossible to elevate the entire range of relations between Russia and African countries to an entirely new level unless the public at large takes the most energetic part in these efforts.

It is hard to overestimate the role of this in strengthening friendship, trust and mutual understanding between nations. For example, many Africans have discovered modern Russia for themselves while taking part in the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi in the autumn of 2017 or while visiting Russia as fans during the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Lavrov therefore considered absolutely necessary to maximise the potential of public, cultural and business diplomacy in the interests of strengthening and expanding the mutually beneficial ties between Russia and Africa.

“This is a wonderful opportunity to discuss topical issues of Russian-African cooperation and to outline specific and forward-looking aspects of cooperation and joint work,” said Lavrov.

As already known, Africa is an important partner for Russia, a participant in the emerging and sustainable polycentric architecture of the world order. Russia’s relations with African countries are valuable in their own right and should not be subject to the fluctuations on the international arena.

“We maintain regular contact at the highest and higher levels. Relations between our parliaments, as well as the exchanges between our respective ministries and departments, including, of course, foreign ministries, are expanding. Trade and economic exchanges are improving, although not at the pace we would like to see. Projects in the military-technical sector, as well as programmes in healthcare, education, and culture are underway,” according to the Foreign Minister.

He further noted that the positions of Russia and the overwhelming majority of African countries on the key issues are similar or very close. Both Russians and African friends are consistent supporters of strengthening democratic and just principles of international life, respect for the cultural diversity of the modern world, and the right of the people to determine the models and approaches to socioeconomic development.

Moscow is interested in close foreign policy coordination with its African partners in the UN and other multilateral venues. In particular, Russia supports further deepening of the BRICS-Africa dialogue.

It also attaches great importance to strengthening peace and security in the region that is the most important component in ensuring the sustainable and dynamic development of the African states and maintaining global and regional stability. As a permanent member of the United Nations’ Security Council, Russia continues to contribute to the development of a strategy for practical peacekeeping operations on the continent, while invariably adhering to the African solutions to African problems principle formulated by the Africans themselves.

As further steps to upgrade its cooperation with African countries in this era of keen competition and globalisation, Russia plans another opportunity to take stock of its current efforts, explore the possibilities and constraints in promoting concrete economic cooperation by holding a Russian-African inter-parliamentary conference and a business forum in the near future.

The first Russian-African inter-parliamentary conference and a special mini business forum under the theme “Russia – Africa: Horizons of Cooperation” was held on June 15, 2010. It included workshops and round tables by business representatives from Russia and African countries, and an exposition of the leading Russian enterprises and regions connected with development of economic cooperation with Africa.

The forthcoming conference and forum are within the context of preparing for the first Russia-Africa Summit, the importance of which President Vladimir Putin stressed during the 10th Anniversary BRICS Summit in Johannesburg in July.

Kellyanne Conway Upsets Elites Again – OpEd

0
0

Kellyanne Conway is being misrepresented by several media outlets, all of which have seized upon her comments regarding the massacre at the Pittsburgh synagogue. On the October 29 edition of “Fox and Friends,”  she discussed what happened, noting that “late-night comedians” who are busy “making fun of people who express religion” contribute to the “anti-religiosity in this country.” She is right about that. Importantly, she never blamed these entertainers for the killings, though that is the way it is being spun.

Newsweek.com, msn.com, au.finance.yahoo, thewrap.com, and slate.com are just some of the media outlets saying Conway “blamed” the killings on late-night comedians. Most absurd of them all is the left-wing “Mother Jones.” It not only said Conway was wrong, it blamed “white supremacy” for the shootings.

More accurate was indiewire.com. Its headline reads, “Kellyanne Conway Says ‘Late-Night Comedians’ Are Partly to Blame for Synagogue Massacre.” CNN was the fairest of all, saying, “Kellyanne Conway Cites ‘anti-Religiosity’ in Pittsburgh Shooting.” (My italic.)

The Catholic League has a website full of examples detailing the many ways in which Hollywood has fostered an anti-religious animus—typically trashing Christians. And yes, “late-night comedians” have played a role in promoting this sick environment.

Are the entertainers responsible for the massacre? No, the killer is. Conway never exculpated Robert Bowers, the anti-Semitic madman behind the killings. But the cultural soil which helps to cultivate people like him can be traced to those who nourish it.

There are secondary and tertiary causes involved in all mass killings. That is what Conway was getting at, and in this instance, it’s not the Klan which shares part of the blame—it’s those who routinely mock people of faith.

What happened in Pittsburgh must be condemned by everyone, and those who are practicing in their faith have a special obligation to stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters in this time of distress.

Morocco: Sport To Promote Positive Values Among Youth – OpEd

0
0

In October 2008, Morocco organized The National Conference on Sport. That major event was marked by the reading of the Royal Letter to the participants. The letter highlighted the importance of sport and its key role as an essential right of every citizen. It also underlined the paramount role of sport as an important lever of human development and for combating marginalization and exclusion.

To implement gradually this strategy the Moroccan government, through the National Human Development Initiative (NHDI), launched the building of new local sports facilities and funded sport projects for disadvantaged youth in poor neighborhoods and in rural areas.

These projects that offered a place for entertainment, relaxation and training for young people and contribute to their socialization and blossoming in the best possible conditions of coaching and security.

Societies all over the world, Morocco is not an exception, show concern about the growth in adolescent problem behaviors (e.g.delinquency, drug use) especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods due to the lack of sport facilities where the youngsters could practice their favorite sports as after school activities.

However, this endeavor to the benefit of youth would be incomplete if it neglected the development of the aptitude for sports. No efforts have been spared. Soccer, handball and basketball courts have been provided in many cities and towns. Multi-purpose halls and swimming pools have been either refurbished or newly built. Spaces reserved to sports clubs (karate, gymnastics) have been opened. The existence of these types of facilities have inspired young people to form associations to encourage others in those areas to foster positive development, while decreasing the risk of problem behaviors.

A totally positive strategy that will enable the youth to integrate through sport and to promote social inclusion and learn values of respect and tolerance. Their coaches and educators on site seek to empower young people with values of fair play, respect and many more. They tend to create social ties and instill positive values through collective sports. Positive efforts that will encourage socialization and improve self-esteem among youngsters. Undoubtedly sport can be a bridge to promote greater understanding within young people and help them to evolve positively.

Doval’s Speech For Strong India 
Actually Calls Civil Society Bluff – OpEd

0
0

The Sardar Memorial Lecture delivered by National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval on October 25 sparked a vicious reaction among opposition parties in India who flayed the ‘bureaucrat for laying down public policy’ and perceived him as ‘batting for PM Modi’. A section of the media fiercely rebuked Doval for being ‘unelected official’ who ‘chose to lay down what kind of government the country should have.’

Ironically, the criticism came from section of the media which wasn’t ‘elected’ itself or concurrently ‘authorised to elaborate on an opinion’ by the same logic either. They were collectively focussed on Doval’s view that India needs a strong, stable and decisive government to take hard decisions in the next decade, something that weak coalitions would be unable to do.

Doval’s ultra-nationalist views that India should desist from being a soft power; that populism was bad and against larger national interest; that India’s private sector companies must promote India’s strategic interest and that the Rule of Law was important and the temptation to undermine it should be resisted were conveniently overlooked by an ‘Indian’ media.

Concurrently, on the same day, United Kingdom-based Human Rights ‘Watchdog’ Amnesty International was raided at its Bengaluru office by five officers of the Enforcement Directorate sparking outrage across the Civil Society and a section of the Indian media expressing ‘fears’ of the government using the foreign funding law as a tool to silence non-profit groups raising concerns about the social costs of India’s rapid economic development.

It may be noted that in 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs had put the New York-based Ford Foundation on a watch list and suspended environmental campaigner Greenpeace’s license under India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

And, in 2017, the government banned foreign funding for the Public Health Foundation of India, backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, saying it used foreign donations to ‘lobby’ for tobacco-control policy issues, ‘prohibited under FCRA’. In time, more than 19,000 NGOs were reportedly blocked from receiving funds from overseas for a string of violations.

On October 2, at least 18 international NGOs working in Pakistan were notified by the Pakistani Interior Ministry to wrap up their activities in the country within 60 days after their applications for registration under the rules regulating presence of foreign-funded aid groups were rejected. The move provoked the predictable ‘harsh backlash’ from NGOs.

Among the 18 told to shut shop were UK-based charities Plan International and International Alert. The British government described the evicted organisations as “important partners for the UK” which, on their part, denied wrongdoing and said their programmes carried out vital work that helped Pakistan’s government and people.

Pakistan’s intelligence maintains some of the NGOs were contributing to a “hybrid war” against Pakistan and “encouraging sectarianism, promoting a foreign agenda, supporting hostile spy agencies, collecting illegal data and operating without any legal backing.”

Incidentally, UK-based and US-funded ‘Save the Children’ was symbolic of the role played by NGOs in Pakistan. ‘Save the Children’ had played an unwitting role in the 2011 operation by US Navy Seals to raid Al Qaeda (terrorist organization banned in Russia) leader Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.

In China, on January 1, 2017, a foreign NGO management law, whose provisions impeded independent operations of registered NGOs, came into effect. Foreign NGOs that had not yet registered and continued to operate in China could face a freeze on bank accounts, sealing of venues, confiscation of assets, suspension of activities and detention of staff.

By June 2017, the National Intelligence Law was adopted and entered into force. While official figures of NGOs operating in China aren’t available, former vice foreign minister Fu Ying had revealed “there are more than 7,000 foreign NGOs operating in China.”

Concurrently, after six months since the NGO law came into force in China, only 350 foreign NGO offices were formally registered. Also, more than 637 temporary filings were made, a fraction of the total number of NGOs.

In Russia, since 2012, a law requires NGOs receiving funding from overseas have to register as ‘foreign agents’ as a protective measure against external influence over its internal affairs. In 2016, President Vladimir Putin signed a bill that allows foreign organizations to be banned from operating in Russia on national security grounds. Staff working for NGOs deemed “undesirable” by local authorities could face fines or up to six years in prison.

Nearly 100 organisations were added to the ‘foreign agent’ list, forcing many to cease activities, and the number of NGOs in Russia has reportedly decreased by a third in just four years since the law came into effect in 2012.

Any civil entity truly concerned with society surely would not want to break the law of the land and avoid proper disclosure of the source of their funds and their intended use. And, for anyone doing so, the law will and should catch up.

Militancy In Kashmir: Identify The Real Issue – OpEd

0
0

Each passing day brings in its wake news of an encounter of security forces with militants. Since most of the militants are locals, their death brings immense suffering to the families and the people of the region! 118 young boys are said to have joined militant ranks in Kashmir in 2018. This constitutes the highest figure in the last seven years. Security analysts feel that local recruitment, which had come down to a trickle, picked up suddenly. The numbers began increasing after the violent summer of 2016 and post the killing of Burhan Wani.

The need to quell this self destructive cycle of violence is being felt in all quarters but the means to do so are alluding definition. This is because the root causes that are leading to the youth joining militancy have not been identified let alone addressed.

It is a myth that Madrasas (seminaries) radicalise young minds of Kashmir and lure them towards militancy. Children who study in Madrasas are being prepared for professional activity in a global environment for which modern education is essential. Their curriculum, therefore, is a mix of religious teachings and modern education. It is not here that the seed of militancy is being sown! Neither is lack of jobs, poverty or cross border incitement reasons for the proliferation of militancy, as is commonly perceived. Putting the blame on such factors is leading to an incorrect appreciation of the problem and hence hindering the search for a solution.

One big reason is broken promises, harassment and denied justice. Kashmiri youth resort to extremism mainly because of the oppression they face in Kashmir and outside. They are labelled as militants when they move outside Kashmir which hurts their sentiments. With each youth getting killed the sense of alienation only increases.

The consistent exposure to security checks and the rude behaviour that is being followed in such instances, even with women and children, is a humiliation that gives great distress to the common man. What is even more galling is that the checks are being done predominantly by the Police of the state. This apart, according to a survey conducted by NGO, the Jammu and Kashmir police from 2010 till date has arrested 25000 youth of Kashmir of which only a few were shifted to jails; the rest were detained in police stations where they are said to be dishonoured and in some cases subject to third degree. It is such behaviour by the government establishments that causes disillusionment and a thrust towards militancy.

It would not be too much to expect that police force of the state to be more humane in the discharge of its duties, however challenging they may be. At the very least they would be expected to evolve more equitable and decent methods to do their jobs. Their lack of sensitivity only adds fuel to the fire, a fire that Pakistan and its stooges in Kashmir leave no opportunity to stoke into a flame that, in turn, sucks in the youth. If the police takes’ a lead towards adopting a humane approach, the rest of the security forces will have no option but to follow.

Another reason for the youth gravitating towards the path of militancy is the tacit support that they get from their society. They are received as heroes wherever they go and upon their deaths huge congregations are organised; such acts are being engineered by inimical foreign forces and their stooges in Kashmir. The support gives to the youth the conviction that they are doing their duty to their people and their God by picking up arms and makes the job of the inimical forces easier.

The lack of trust in the local political leaders, separatist or the mainstream, is a major factor that makes the youth feel insecure. They have no confidence in the Indian state and also look at Pakistan with suspicion. The lukewarm response of the world towards the Kashmir dispute discourages them from relying on the world powers for a peaceful settlement. Thus, the feeling of alienation is complete! They feel that they can move ahead only by taking things in their own hands and for this they have opted for an armed “revolution.” The youth in Kashmir have understood that the Indian state feels the heat when there is unrest, otherwise they do not take this problem seriously, so they follow the path of violent agitation. The difference between the present day militancy and that of early 1990’s is that the ideological conviction of the present lot of militants is far more than before.

It is imperative to institute concrete steps to dissuade the youth from following the self-destructive path of militancy. The effort has to permeate from the basic unit of family, relatives, civil society and schools to the stage where the grown up boys are kept under a close watch to ensure that they do not get drawn towards militancy, a path where death is assured. The government will have to play an active role in support of the civil society.

It has to be realised that the existing and escalating threshold of violence in Kashmir that should actually be going down, is a grave cause of worry. Parents and families are in constant dread of the situation where their boys will join the militant ranks and their families will be destroyed forever. The government must correctly understand the reasons behind the growth of militancy and come up with concrete steps to prevent youth from following this terrible path. Development alone will not lead to a solution, avenues for communication need to be opened along with the efforts to integrate the people with the rest of the country. The people also need to reach out to the government and assist it in its efforts to retrieve the situation; remaining in a permanent sulk and consistently building on the trust deficit is not likely to improve things. Lasting peace can prevail in Kashmir only when locals are absolutely and totally weaned away from militancy and it is here that maximum effort needs to be concentrated.

*Farooq Wani is a Kashmir based senior journalist and analyst

Biting US Sanctions Help Protesters In Iran – OpEd

0
0

The new round of US sanction on Iran hit where it really hurts i.e. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its arm the Basij Force. The US Treasury Department slapped Iran with fresh sanction on October 16.

It sanctioned the force and 22 other banks, companies and financial institutions directly funneling billions of dollars into IRGC’s foreign adventures. The Basij for decades has been recruiting, training and dispatching hundreds of thousands of child soldiers into wars. Basij now has earned its well-deserved place, as “specially designated global terrorists” on US’s blacklist.

The list sanctions a number of Iranian companies and also freezes Basij assets and blocks US citizens from doing business with the Basij and its conglomerate of banks, investment companies and engineering firms, among other interests.

The new sanctions-for the first time- have targeted Iran’s Tractor manufacturing, the largest in the Middle East and Africa. Ironically, the revenues are used to fuel foreign wars and the leftovers are used to oil the regime’s repressive security forces at home.

“In addition to its involvement in violent crackdowns and serious human rights abuses in Iran, the Basij recruits and trains fighters for the IRGC-QF, including Iranian children, who then deploy to Syria to support the brutal Assad regime,” the Treasury Department said in a press release. The Treasury Department added that the Basij also recruits among Afghan migrants to Iran.

By targeting the Basij militia- IRGC’s most powerful arm at home – using child soldiers since 1979, the US economically will have the regime on chokehold. Basij is the machine with which the Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini and his financial conglomerate heavily rely on for doing their dirty work.

The Treasury Department’s detailed statement sheds light on highly unethical conduct of recruiting, training and sending child solders to the war. The statement also revels shocking truth of how the IRGC uses children as young as 12-years-old merely as canon fodders in its many wars across the region.

“The Basij recruits and trains fighters for the IRGC-QF, including Iranian children, who then deploy to Syria to support the brutal Assad regime. Since at least early 2015, the Basij has recruited and provided combat training to fighters before placing them on a waiting list for deployment to Syria,” the statement added.

A coordinated effort

US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley blasted the Iranian regime for its use of children in the war front. She said in the Security Council: “The use of child soldiers is a moral outrage that every civilized nation rejects while Iran celebrates it.”

Haley added that the regime is using Basij to recruit children to fight in Syria, including Afghan immigrants as young as 14-years-old. She said the group’s funding comes from “multibillion dollar business interests operating in Iran’s automotive, mining, metals and banking industries.”
She hits the nail on the head by adding: “Iran’s economy is increasingly devoted to funding Iranian repression at home and aggression abroad. In this case, Iranian big business and finance are funding the war crime of using child soldiers. This is crony terrorism.”

The US Treasury also added a screenshot of a November 25, 2017 video broadcast by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) news agency showing a 13-year old Basij member in the Syrian border city of Abu Kamal.

He said he was a “defender of the shrine,” the euphemism the Iranian government uses for fighters it sends to Syria and Iraq. He names two of his fellow soldiers who were killed in Syria. In the video, the boy speaks about his motivation to join forces in Syria.

Afghan child soldiers in Syria

The same system of sacrificing children continues to this day. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW) report released on October 1 last year, the IRGC and its armed Basij units continue to put children of Afghan refugees in Iran in harm’s way, as was witnessed in the currently waging Syrian conflict.

In a repeat of the Iran-Iraq War, the regime reportedly recruited and dispatched schoolchildren to sweep minefields in Syria. The HRW report states: “Afghan children as young as 14 have fought in the Fatemiyoun division, an exclusively Afghan armed group supported by Iran that fights alongside government forces in the Syrian conflict. Under international law, recruiting children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities is a war crime.”

During the Iraq-Iraq war, Khomeini’s regime used hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren as cannon fodder. It has been reported that most young recruits received between one to three months of military training before they were being sent to the war front.

There were reports of nine-year-old children being used in human wave attacks, while others were asked to run over minefields to clear the path. In fact, many child soldiers captured by Iraqis during the Iraq-Iran war were in their early teens.

Iranian child soldiers were sent into the battlefield with plastic keys around their necks. These keys symbolized their so-called permission to enter paradise. Sent ahead of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) troops and armored vehicles, these children were used as ‘mine-clearers’. Most of them were blown up as they charged across the minefields, thereby clearing the way for the IRGC.

Clearing minefields

According to some estimates about the Iran-Iraq War, which killed around a million people between 1980 and 1988, the paramilitary Basij Force recruited thousands of children to clear minefields.

Although there are no reliable records about the actual number of children casualties in the war, a statement made in 1982 by former president of the regime Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani stated that 400,000 volunteers had supplemented Iran’s armed forces.

According to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross at least 10 percent of Iranian prisoners of war were underage children. According to many Iranian military officers captured by Iraqis during the war, nine out of 10 Iranian child soldiers were killed in the battlefields.

Basij Force’s illegal and cynical tactics for mobilizing and indoctrinating Iran’s innocent children to participate in wars abroad, and internal suppression, has been ignored for years by the international community. The steps taken by US Treasury Department are certainly welcomed by the Iranian people as they give strength to their pursuit of freedom.

*Reza Shafiee is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). He tweets @shafiee_shafiee.

Chinese Debt Trap Will Trigger Trade Colonialism For Small And Weaker Nations In Belt And Road Initiative: What Does It Presage? – Analysis

0
0

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is feared to be a cobweb for debt trapped small and weaker nations. It woos small and weaker nations with loans in the name of infrastructure development and when their debt are not paid, it captures their land and resources. It violates the global norms for development loan, while leaving little room for debt relief. So far, eight countries have fallen prey to debt trap. They are Djibouti, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao, Maldives, Mongolia, Pakistan and Montenegro, according to a study by Centre for Global Development.

There are other weaker nations which are underway to fall prey to debt trap. They are Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

India is not party to Belt and Road Initiative. Even then, it is not far from the ripple impact of Chinese debt trap, since its neighbours are likely to succumb to Chinese debt trap.

Sri Lanka plunged into debt trap, which caused handing over its Hambantota Port to China. Djibouti – an African nation — is tending to cede its control on a key port, which is linked to Beijing linked company. The Malaysian newly elected Prime Minister Mahattir Mohammad cancelled US $ 20 billion East Coast Rail Link project – a massive Belt and Road project. Tonga’s Prime Minister Akilis Pohiva urged the Pacific Island nations to request China to wave the debts. Pakistan is creeping into debt trap, running pillar to post for aid.

The growth of debt trap clouds over the leaders of African and small nations in South East Asia, who accepted substantial development loans from China as a part of their participations in Belt and Road Initiative. They feared that when these leaders lose power, the successive governments plunged into huge debt and are stuck with the task of repayment.

Indonesia is a case in point. The debt trap will push these nations in financial turmoil and deter to finance their own development projects.

The Chinese loan is viewed a surreptitious attempt to spread Chinese economic outreach in South East Asia. The growing burden of debt will give more opportunities to China to dominate the terms for trade and investment with the debt ridden countries. This will eventually lead to Chinese colonialization of small and weaker nations in the economic realm. It will pose a strong challenge to India to increase its trade and investment relations with its neighbor and nations in ASEAN. India is on the mega project for the development of North East through development of connectivity with its neighbor and ASEAN.

The Chinese debt trap means the loss of the sovereignty of small nations like India neighbors and weaker nations in ASEAN. Debt are turning into equity and finally ownership goes to China. Besides losing trade opportunities, it will create security concern. For example, with the transfer of the ownership of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, China aggravated the security concern for India. The port is likely to be used for China’s military base.

The debt trap triggers concern for India to join RCEP ( Regional Cooperation for Economic Partnership) – the biggest trade block in the world. Every likelihood, RECEP will take a shape by this year end, after failing two targets.

China is the biggest stake holder in RCEP, which includes ASEAN 10 + 6 (China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and India). At present, India has trade deficit with RCEP. Given the China’s predominance in RCEP, the major concern for India is that China’s trade colonization will act headwind to India’s trade expansion in RCEP.

In 2017-18, RCEP accounted for 64.4 percent of India’s world trade deficit. China was the main reason for India’s trade imbalance with RCEP. It alone accounted for 60.4 percent of India’s trade imbalance with RCEP.

The surge in debt burden will increase India’s vulnerability in the trade block. Instead of reaping benefits, it would impart a reverse impact on India. It will peer for a major import market for China and its colonized partner countries. The spill over impact will prove double whammy for India.

In other words, China and its debt trapped nations will be the game changer in the trade block. Indian entrepreneurs feared that the debt ridden nations would open a new platform to China to reap the benefits of tariff concessions through back door. India offers less opportunities for tariff concessions to China, as because it does not have FTA with China.

Under the negotiations for RCEP, India offered concessions three tier tariff structure. India offered big elimination of tariff on 80 percent traded goods with ASEAN countries and 62.5 percent to Japan and South Korea as because It has FTAs with these countries. To China, Australia and New Zealand, India offered least elimination of tariffs on 42.5 percent traded goods , since it does not have FTAs with these countries.

It was earlier perceived that three tier tariff structure would plug Chinese exports to India under RCEP, based on strict Rules of Origin. But, a close view analysis says that the surge in debt trapped nations in the block will give leeway to China to for a back door entry in Indian market. The debt trapped nations will be forced to open the door to Chinese investment more liberally , after losing bargaining power and helped China to make push exports through their land. India is the biggest consuming country in the block. Eventually, India will be the dumping ground for China.

This means that even though sensitive goods , such as electronic goods, may be excluded from tariff concessions from China under RCEP negotiation , they will find new passage to enter India through debt trapped nations. This will cause damage to domestic industry and the country would witness import surge of Chinese goods.

Views expressed are personal


Julian Assange, Ecuador And The Dangers Of Farce – OpEd

0
0

This is the next stage of the Julian Assange chronicles: from the summit of information disclosures and meddlesome revelations on classified state matters, the Australian rabblerouser now finds himself the subject of a new round of jokes and ribbing. WikiLeaks, in short, must be wary of the dangers posed by a new campaign of farce.

Satire, humour and ad hominem attacks can have the effect of wounding and deflating. When directed against dissidents from the vantage point of tradition, the effect can be calculating and delegitimising. For Chelsea Manning, a querulous attitude to the US military, a confused matter of gender and lingering resentment were furnished as weapons against her role as a genuine whistleblower. Whistleblowers, or so goes this line of reasoning, cannot suffer “delusions of grandeur”. They must be calm, focused, and scrupulously clean.

Assange, as with others associated with the vocation of exposing the asymmetrical nature of power and its impacts, has found himself repeatedly depicted in fashions that supposedly undermine the rationale for transparency politics. He is an enemy of conventional forms of stratified power, and must duly account for dirtying that sty in advancing an approach that insists upon transnational networks “which function,” writes Raffi Khatchadourian, “outside norms of state sovereignty that have held for centuries.”

Joan Smith, chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Panel, provided an exemplary demonstration of how an attempted diminution of a legacy can work. In a graceless attack on Assange in 2016, she showed a damnable political immaturity. Her clumsily fashioned assault dismissed international protections against arbitrary detention or matters of political prosecution; none of these, she suggested, applied to Assange.

No mention of Cablegate, or any other expansive document release, features; Assange was merely a molesting ego-maniac who needed to front legal processes as others who had been accused of assault, “including the comedian Bill Cosby who has just been told that prosecutors in the US can proceed with a sexual assault charge dating back to 2004.” Assange was “a fugitive from justice, a man with such an inflated ego that he believes himself beyond the law.”

The restoration of basic entitlements to Assange at the Ecuadorean embassy (modest, restricted internet access being one of them), where he remains a troublesome tenant, has provided another round for comic skewering. Now, the razors of satire have been deployed in various measures that seek as much to render his historical contributions to whistleblowing and journalism a matter of mirth rather than worth. In one sense, this returns Assange to a time immemorial function of palace politics: to be the jester, is to reveal the truth.

It all began with the new “house rules” of the Ecuadorean embassy, which restore conditional access to the Internet. Not following these newly minted conditions “could lead to the termination of the diplomatic asylum granted by the Ecuadorean state”.

While such injunctions might be sensible for many citizens, they grate with the publisher who has made it both his hobby and work to disrupt international relations and rubbish the façade of diplomatic decency. In an act of substantive neutering in that regard, he had to avoid any activity, according to the Ecuadorean government memorandum, “considered as political or interfering with the internal affairs of other states.”

The memorandum also made it clear that the embassy was going to target “unauthorised equipment”, reserving “the right to authorise security personnel to seize equipment” or request British authorities to enter the premises to do so.

This was not all. In the language of an irritable nurse, the memorandum urged Assange to observe basic levels of hygiene (cleaning his own bathroom, including after himself and his guests), a behavioural requirement rich with imputation, and could not hope for embassy payments towards his food, laundry or other costs for his stay from December 1, 2018 onwards. Quarterly medical check-ups would cease being covered.

He also had to ensure continued adequate care for his feline companion, one whose name has altered over time in the name, ostensibly, public relations. “When Castro died,” explained Assange, “we started calling it Cat-stro.” (Currently, the name Michi seems to be preferred.)

Where this instagrammed, tweeted creature came from is unclear, though it invariably supplies his observers with salivating prospects for speculation. One story run for tabloid consumption is that the cat was a gift from his children; another, told to Khatchadourian, was that the tale was a handy concoction designed to gull. The embassy is, however, clear. He had to take care of the cat’s “well-being, food and hygiene”. Not doing so risked having to surrender the animal to care.

It is precisely such antics – and for Assange, being in a restricted abode for six years should entitle him some measure of frivolity – that provide morsels for distraction. Information wars can reach the high summit of austere seriousness in exposing state mendacity, or they can plummet into depictions of distracting farce.

Farce and the staged absurd is something that is bound to shadow Assange in this latest bout, even if a certain tart historical legacy is assured. Having now launched a lawsuit against Ecuador’s Foreign Affairs Ministry on claimed violations of constitutional rights, Assange is being mocked for being unable to understand the appointed translator. “According to the English-speaking Assange,” goes an acerbic Seamus Bellamy, “his self-righteous blather differs from what the rest of the English-speaking world gets along with.” Judge Karina Martinez conceded that the court had erred in appointing a translator not adept in picking up the Australian accent which, for Assange, was sufficiently thick to warrant consideration. This is vintage Assange: amidst the undergrowth of seriousness comes an element of the absurd with a good twist of truth.

Who Killed Khashoggi? An Alternative View – OpEd

0
0

The killing of Jamal Khashoggi – a Washington Post columnist and a critic of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) – has sparked global outrage and pitched the world’s top oil exporter into crisis. The incident has put the West’s relationship with Riyadh into sharp focus, given scepticism about Saudi Arabia’s shifting explanations of the killing at its Istanbul consulate.

To calm down the situation, Riyadh announced the arrest 18 persons as part of its investigation into the case, which include a 15-man security team that Turkey says flew in hours before the killing. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that those behind the killing would be prosecuted in the kingdom and that the investigation would take time. In my opinion investigators may be misled or forced to release an incorrect report based on the reports of Western media, controlled by the Zionists. Even a person of ordinary wit can identify the culprits, if the motive of killing is established.

In many countries, especially where monarchy/dictatorship prevails over, the rulers don’t like critics. Sooner than later such persona non-grata are either put in jail or assassinated. Though, United States claims to be the largest democracy, it also does the same in the name of regime change, two of the most talked about names of the present era are Saddam Hussein of Iraq (hanged) and Mursi of Egypt (put in jail). In this part of the world where I live, killing of politicians and journalist is too common. Therefore, killing of Khashoggi is not surprising. However, the storm being created in a cup of tea needs a little deeper probe because his assassination according to spy agencies is ‘elimination of an agent when he became redundant’.

Khashoggi was working for one of the most famous and powerful media house of the United States and his prime target was MbS, who already has enough enemies within his family and kingdom. MbM’s most dangerous trait is ‘Ironman’ who just can’t tolerate criticism. Therefore, assassination of Khashoggi can be termed ‘killing two birds with one stone’. Elimination of MbS may have become all the more necessary because the United States finds him the biggest hurdle if economic sanctions have to be imposed on Saudi Arabia.

The killing of Khashoggi in Turkey and making the details public through the courtesy of Turkish president can also be termed a point worth probing. The United States does not like Tayyib, as he is emerging as a leader of Muslim Ummah and biggest threat for Israel. If one can recall King Faisal of Saudi Arabia had emerged as a leader of Muslim Ummah in seventies, but very soon he was assassinated by his own nephew within the Kingdom.

To the utter disappointment of the United States and Israel manta ‘Iran is a bigger threat for Saudi Arabia as compared to Israel’ has failed. Iran applied all the restraints and gave Saudi Arabia the status of leader of OPEC, whenever there was any discussion about increasing/decreasing crude oil output. It is necessary to remind the readers that it is often alleged that during Iraq-Iran war, Saudi Arabia finance Iraqi assault and also didn’t make any effort to stop the war between two Muslim countries.

Now coming to the most important part, who killed Khashoggi? Though, MbS may not like this expression, Saudi Arabia does not have the capacity to undertake such assault in another country. The two prime suspects can be CIA and Mossad, which have been undertaking such operations in other countries. Two stories which hit headlines of international media are killing f Iranian nuclear scientists in UAE and killing of ObL in Pakistan. It is alleged that the first operation was done by Mossad and the second operation was undertaken by CIA.

The logical conclusion of killing of Khashoggi seems to be that it was aimed at eliminating MbS, the assassination was done in Istanbul to initiate a war between Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to also impose economic sanctions Saudi Arabia. The Donald Trump has recently claimed that Saudi Arabia can’t live more than two weeks without the support of United States. The sole surviving super power no longer needs Saudi oil but remains adamant at selling more arms to the monarchy by dragging it in a direct war. Proxy wars seems to be getting over because in most of the countries the prime supporter of wars is facing humiliating defeat, these include Afghanistan, Iran and Syria.

Reform At The UN Needed To Stop World Disorder – OpEd

0
0

The United Nations Organization, like the League of Nations before, was conceived for the noble purpose of ending wars between nations. Yet, we have witnessed, almost non-stop, one war after another. Since the end of the Second World War in 1945 there have been some 250 major wars in which over 50 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.

In the history of warfare the twentieth century stands out as the bloodiest and most brutal – three times more people have been killed in wars in the last ninety years than in all the previous five hundred years. No part of the world has escaped the scourge of war. Thanks to the war industry and merchants of death there is nowhere that modern weapons or armies cannot reach.

Here is a short list (and by no means an all comprehensive one): the Chinese Civil War (1946-49), the Greek Civil War (1946-49), the Korean War (1950-53), the Algerian war of independence from France (1954-62), the Vietnam War (1954-75), the Arab-Israel wars (1948-49, 1967, 1973), the DRC wars (1964-2002), India-Pakistan wars (1965, 1973), Cambodia wars (1967-98), the Ethiopian Civil War (1974-1991), Cambodia-Vietnam War (1975-89), the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets (1978-92), Iraq-Iran war (1980-88), the invasion of Lebanon by Israel (1982), the Falkland Islands War (1982), Sri Lanka Civil War (1983-2009), the civil wars in Afghanistan in the post-Soviet Era followed by invasion by the USA and its NATO Allies in the aftermath of 9/11 (2001-to-date), the First Gulf War (1991), Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-94), the Balkan Wars in which the Serbs attacked the Bosnians (1992-95) and the Kosovars (1998-99), Russian invasion of the breakaway Republic of Chechnya, the Bush-Blair illegal war on Iraq (2003-11), and the Libyan and the civil wars in Yemen and Syria with foreign players.

Our ancestors said ‘no’ to the Holocaust, and yet genocide became a reality in the Balkans for the Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars who were massacred simply because of their religion in the 1990s. In Rwanda we saw a similar genocide in 1994 against the ethnic Tutsis. Rohingya Muslims and Hindus in Buddhist Myanmar (formerly Burma) continue to be killed for their ethnic and religious identities due to on-going genocide against them since at least General Ne Win’s time when he came to power in 1962.

In his must-read article “How to Fix the U.N.—and Why We Should” in the Foreign Policy (September 26, 2018), Turkish President Recep Erdogan said, “The main reason for the U.N.’s current troubles is the Security Council’s failure to keep its promise of promoting peace and security around the world. From Bosnia and Rwanda to Syria, Yemen, and Palestine, the U.N.’s top decision-making body has neither prevented atrocities nor brought to justice those responsible for heinous crimes. On the U.N.’s watch, authoritarian regimes around the world have used conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. Some regimes have even carried out genocide without facing consequences. The U.N. has also failed the millions of children who suffer from extreme poverty and malnutrition and, as Turkey knows all too well, has been unable to take necessary steps to ease the suffering of refugees.”

It has become difficult for religious minorities in many parts of our world. With the fascists and religious bigots in power in places like India, Myanmar, the Philippines and some parts of Europe the lives of hundreds of millions of minorities, esp. Muslims, have been marginalized. Freedom-seeking Kashmiris continue to be killed in Narendra Modi’s India.

Just as we have witnessed before in the Rakhine (formerly Arakan) state of Myanmar with Muslim-sounding names of towns and places being replaced, India is doing its own branding. Recently, Adityanath Yogi, the Chief Minister of UP, has changed the name of famous city of UP, Allahabad to Prayagraj. Earlier Yogi had made many changes in the names like that of Mughal sarai to Pundit Deendayal Upadhayay Junction (named now after a RSS fascist), Urdu Bazar to Hindi Bazar, Ali Nagar to Arya Nagar, Miya Bazar as Maya Bazar, Islampur as Ishwarpur, Humayun Nagar as Hanuman Nagar, etc. He regards all Muslim-sounding names as being alien.

In an interview Yogi said he has to change many more names. On his agenda is to change the name Taj Mahal to Ram Mahal, Azamgarh to Aryamgarh and to cap it all, as per him, the name India in the constitution should be changed to Hindustan.

In China, millions of Muslims and Christians continue to suffer because of their religion. In Xinjiang (formerly East Turkestan) the Chinese local governments have ordered pepper spray, handcuffs and electric cattle prods for Uighur internment centers. Restrictions have long been placed on Muslims in Xinjiang for the basic Islamic practices of performing prayers, fasting during Ramadan, consumption of halal food, wearing of headscarves by women and growing of beards by men.

Forget about Muslims, even the minority Jews are not safe in Trump’s America. On the Saturday morning of Oct. 27, 2018 eleven Jewish Americans were killed as they came to pray at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Six others were injured. The terrorist 46-year-old Robert Bowers, who has been arrested after gun shootout with the police, reportedly wrote in the social media, “HIAS likes to bring in invaders that kill our people,” referring to a Jewish refugee advocacy group that held a National Refugee Shabbat last weekend. Cesar Sayoc, the suspect who was arrested on Friday in connection with a series of suspicious explosive packages that were sent to top Democrats and CNN, is a die-hard supporter of Trump who attended a 2017 rally for President Trump.

Apparently, Trump’s hateful rhetoric against immigrants have energized the white supremacists as never before in recent history of the USA.

What is America coming to and where is it heading?

Thousands of Central American migrants, including men, women and entire families, are walking through southern Mexico, in the hope of reaching the USA. Low pay, rising prices for basics such as food, water and electricity and extortion demands from the local gang had made it impossible to make ends meet for most Honduran migrants. A few Nicaraguan families in the group are fleeing their country to escape political unrest and the violent government crackdown which has claimed more than 300 lives. Not too long ago, we have seen similar mass migrations from war-torn countries of Asia and Africa to Europe.

It goes without saying that if war and its threats between nations could be avoided, humanity would have a much better chance of surviving and prospering. Instead, it is insanely thought that conflict between nations can be resolved with war. But, none wins in a war except those involved in arms sales. It is no accident that many of the veto-wielding countries are the biggest arms sellers.

Disorder and war between nations help the ‘merchants of death’ to maximize their profits. Weapons are not cheap either. In order to be prepared for war, governments are induced to buying weapons at an exorbitant price from the arms industry, which is enjoying bonanza years in the last few decades. So, while their people starve and suffer from all kinds of deprivations, a huge percentage of their budget is allocated to the purchase of arms.

Since at least 9/11, the UN, which is supposed to be our heartbeat, has been seen more as an organization that is either abused or manipulated by veto-wielding powers to serve their selfish interests than being an arbiter of peace and security for all nationals. It’s perceived weak against rogue nations that try to exploit the U.N.’s weaknesses to undermine the liberal international order. Take, for example, the case of Myanmar murderous regime that continues to be protected inside the UNSC by its big brother – China, and the case of Syria’s Assad regime enjoying similar protection from Russia. Remember, how President Bush Jr and his Secretary Powell misled the world community to justify US’s illegal war against Iraq in 2003? Consider also, the recent decision by Trump to withdraw from the U.N. Human Rights Council; to pull out of UNESCO, the U.N. body for educational, scientific, and cultural collaboration; and to cut funding to UNRWA, the U.N. relief agency for Palestinians.

I am glad to note that some wise world leaders like Dr. Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, Recep Erdogan of Turkey and Dr. Hassan Rouhani of Iran are speaking out in favor of a fundamental change in the UN to get us out of the vicious cycles of war and making the UN more democratic.

In his speech at the UNGA in September 2018, Dr. Mahathir said that wars are legitimizing killings and wanton destruction of everything. What is worse: “the killings are regarded as noble, and the killers are hailed as heroes. They get medals stuck to their chest and statues erected in their honor, have their names mentioned in history books. There is something wrong with our way of thinking, with our value system. Kill one man, it is murder, kill a million and you become a hero.”

Dr. Mahathir said that a reform in the UN organization is needed. He concluded, “Five countries on the basis of their victories 70 over years ago cannot claim to have a right to hold the world to ransom forever. They cannot take the moral high ground, preaching democracy and regime change in the countries of the world when they deny democracy in this organization.” He suggested that “the veto should not be by just one permanent member but by at least two powers backed by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly should then back the decision with a simple majority.”

President Erdogan wrote, “At a time when global leadership is desperately needed, it is crucial to improve the United Nations rather than destroy it. If the great powers are unwilling to assume responsibility; if a handful of countries that reap the benefits of the existing international system do not want to commit to reform; and if some of the U.N.’s architects, including the United States, continue to damage multilateralism by taking increasingly unilateralist steps, it will be time to redefine global leadership. We must end the monopoly of a small number of nations and promote the collective leadership of countries that aim to resolve key global challenges. If the great powers prove unwilling or unable to act, the community of nations—under the umbrella of the United Nations or other organizations—must do what is necessary.” He recommended that the monopoly of the Big 5 within the UNSC be abolished by increasing the number of its members to 20.

Inviting the US to return to the JCPOA instead of imposing sanctions and throwing threats, in his address to the UN General Assembly, the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani lambasted the US disrespect for its international obligations, citing examples of US and its allies’ wrong policies across the world, especially in the Middle East. He said, “The world is suffering from the recklessness and disregard of some states for international values and institutions. The message of our presence here is that the preservation of interests and security in the world in the least costly manner is solely possible through the cooperation of, and coordination among, countries. However, it is unfortunate that we are witnessing rulers in the world who think they can secure their interests better—or at least in the short-term ride public sentiments and gain popular support—through the fomenting of extremist nationalism and racism, and though xenophobic tendencies resembling a Nazi disposition, as well as through the trampling of global rules and undermining international institutions; even through preposterous and abnormal acts such as convening  a high-level meeting of the Security Council.”

Rouhani said that one cannot aspire to securing more peace and security at the cost of denying others’ peace and security. “We should not allow the breathing space for and growth of the line of thinking that holds others to ransom through the artificial creation of insecurity.”

He said, “We support peace and democracy in the entire Middle East. We consider nuclear knowledge an imperative and nuclear weapons prohibited.” “The most pressing crisis in the Middle East, however, is the question of Palestine. The passage of time cannot – and must not –justify occupation. The innumerable crimes of Israel against the Palestinians would not have been possible without the material and military assistance, and political and propaganda support of the United States. Israel, equipped with a nuclear arsenal and blatantly threatening others with nuclear annihilation, presents the most daunting threat to regional and global peace and stability.”

In his speech at the UNGA, President Erdogan said, “We believe that when we say, ‘The World Is Bigger Than 5’, we become the voice of the common conscience of the entire human race.” He asked: “Why should not all 194 countries in the world – in a rotational manner – have a permanent seat at the UN Security Council?”

“Limiting the reform of the United Nations to the budget only, will neither contribute to the solution of real problems, nor will it make anybody happy. There is a need for increasing the efficiency of this organization, which I deem very important for the future of the world, on its fundamental areas of duty which are security, development and social equality,” President Erdogan underscored.

“To ensure a peaceful and secure future for all, we have a duty to succeed in bringing the humankind’s struggle, starting with the pursuit of justice, to a conclusion with the establishment of justice. Today, if the assets of the wealthiest 62 people in the world amount to the assets of the half of world’s population of 3.6 billion people, then there is a significant problem that we need to do something about. If there exist 821 million people in the world that fall asleep hungry at night while 672 million are diagnosed with obesity, then there is a problem. If 258 million people across different geographies leave their places in search for more humane conditions and 68 million people are forcefully displaced, then there is a problem. If a baby born in Africa is nine times more likely to die in the first months of his/her life than a baby born here in this city, then there is a problem. Rumi, a shining beacon from Konya at the heartland of Anatolia which enlightens all souls across the world, said that justice means “bestowing things in its proper place,” meaning giving someone what he or she is due. Let us “bestow rights in its proper place” and make the United Nations the voice and implementer of the humankind’s expectation for justice. Let us establish a global administrative system that will serve as a shield to protect the downtrodden, lend a helping hand to the hungry and unsheltered, and fill future generations with hope,” President Erdogan said.

Underscoring that all that is said from the UNGA’s podium, all the analyses and proposals, can only make sense if they are put into action, President Erdogan said: “Likewise, according to Rumi, a cruel person is the one who does not fulfill his or her duties. If we want to make the United Nations the source of justice instead of cruelty, we have to dedicate ourselves more fully to the tasks bestowed upon us.”

Our world without the UN would be disastrous. We need it. However, as eloquently stated by the above cited world leaders of our time, it needs critical reforms to be an effective global entity that is respected by all, and seen as just and serious arbiter of peace, and comes to the aid of the oppressed people against the oppressive powers, and is not seen as a platform to justify the crimes of the nuclear Brahmins and gangsters that have thus far rendered it useless.

Only by democratizing the global institute can such aspirations be met. Will the Gang of 5 allow such reforms?

Earth’s Carrying Capacity Strained By Population Growth – OpEd

0
0

Earth’s renewable resources and carrying capacity is being severely strained to “support with some degree and comfort and individual choice” the world’s human population.

This is due to an overrun of fertility rates since 2000, that caused a global population swell feared to reach 10 billion before 2050, the US Council on Environmental Quality and the State Department said in a three-year study called ”Reconnaissance of the Future Global 2000”.

“The declines in carrying capacity, already evident in scattered areas around the world point to a phenomenon that is fast spreading”, notes the study.

“Unless nations collectively and individually take bold and imaginative steps toward improved environmental, social and economic conditions, reduced fertility, better management of resources and better protection of the environment, the world will expect trouble most of the 21st century”, warns the study.

Grim Outlook

As excerpted by the Population Reference Bureau in its Intercom publication, “Global 2000” rather gives a grim outlook for the world in this century.

The study details some of the consequences should global population trends continue unchanged in this century this wise:

  • Extinction of at least 500,000 plant and animal species by 2050.
  • A 40 percent slash in all remaining forests in the less developed countries and loss of several inches of topsoil from croplands the world over.
  • Much less arable land per person, only one quarter hectare on the average from the four fifths of a hectare.
  • More than half of the world’s 2 billion barrels of original petroleum reserved resources will already be consumed.
  • Upsurge in prices of vital resources over the inflation level.
  • Declines in per capita water supply by 35 to 47 percent.
  • Four fifths of the world population will live in less developed countries.
  • Widening gap between the richest and the poorest with great disparities within countries.
  • More deaths from hunger and diseases especially among babies and young children and more mentally and physically-handicapped cases among those surviving infancy.

The most troubling of these outcomes is the drop of productivity of Earth’s renewable resources, according to the study.

Technological Advances Will Not Stop the Inevitable

And more troubling, the study suggests, is that even allowing the technological developments and adoptions, the world’s human population will only be within a few generations of reaching the entire Earth’s carrying capacity.

So what are the chances of stemming the tide and averting the consequences?

Not too good.

As the study bares, there is no silver bullet. “There are no quick or easy solutions, particularly in countries and regions where population pressure is already leading to a reduction of the carrying capacity of the land.”

The assessment stems from observations that living conditions spawned by population-induced environmental deterioration render more difficult reduction of fertility to replacement level (at which the population of a country stops growing).

Some Nations Will be Hard Up in Feeding their Population

As the grim scenario looms, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) bared that at least 28 developing countries would not be able to feed their respective countries by the middle of the century because yields will be adversely affected by climate change and genetic erosion.

Four of the 28 countries are in Asia—Philippines, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam. Seven in Latin America—Jamaica, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe, Windward Isles, Guatemala; 17 in Africa—Tunisia, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Benin, Upper Volta, Togo, Mali, Malawi, Namibia, Comoros Isles, Ethiopia, Nigeria Uganda.

The reasons, UNFAO said are inferior planting seeds and genetic resources, increasing desertification, prolonged droughts and diminishing water supply, deteriorating soil quality and global warming.

Loss of Genetic Resources

Biorich areas in the world responsible for food and medical genes important to humanity face erosion most critically in this century, the US Council of Environmental Quality report stresses. As such, these regions holding potential genetic properties of plants or animals that can be used to develop better varieties of crops in farming or develop better livestock, need priority conservation efforts if the world is to tame the population boom.

Genetic diversity is being lost as species are becoming extinct; pharmacists are losing raw materials from which new drugs are developed; agricultural scientists are losing wild relatives of crop plants that can ensure more productive or pest and disease-tolerant food crops, and; wild animal breeds are being lost which could have improved farm animal breeding.

In its September 2018 report, the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s watchdog of flora and fauna, said an additional 27,000 species are in danger of becoming extinct.

Of the number, 41 percent are amphibians, 5 percent mammals, 34 percent conifers, 13 percent birds, 31 percent sharks and manta rays, 33 percent corals, and 27 percent selected crustaceans.
Wild species are building blocks for the betterment of human life but their loss can mean loss of mankind. The study suggests one way humans may evade the inevitable is by going back to the way of traditional communities.

“Indigenous peoples or ‘Ecosystem people’ value biodiversity as a part of their livelihood as well as through cultural and religious sentiments. A great variety of crops have been cultivated in traditional agricultural systems and this permitted a wide range of produce to be grown and marketed throughout the year and acted as an insurance against the failure of one crop. In recent years farmers have begun to receive economic incentives to grow cash crops for national or international markets,” the study reminds.

It may be well to learn from them.

The Arms Behind The Invictus Games – OpEd

0
0

The origins of the Invictus Games (“For our Wounded Warriors,” goes the slogan) lies in war. Wars that crippled and caused depression and despair. The games became a project of grand distraction and worth, a form of emotional bread for servicemen and women. Do not let wounds, mental or physical, deter you. Move to the spirit of William Ernest Henley, an amputee who, during convalescence, penned those lines which speak to a Victorian stubbornness before adversity: “I am the masters of my fate;/I am the captain of my soul.”

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, was supposedly inspired by a trip to the United States in 2013 by how, as the Invictus Games Foundation explains, “sport can help physically, psychologically and socially those suffering from injuries and illness.” The games came into being next year, embodying “the fighting spirit of wounded, injured and sick Service personnel and personifies what these tenacious men and women and achieve post injury.”

As they opened in Sydney, something rather troubling lurked in the undergrowth of those keen to promote the games. This was an occasion for the sponsors to hop on in numbers, to insist on that piffle called values. “We are excited,” goes the organisers’ statement, “to be on the journey to our Games with the fantastic support of our family of Invictus Games partners. Their support not only helps us deliver a great Games, but also builds initiatives that inspire connected, healthy and active lifestyles for those facing mental health and physical challenges.”

Names like Saab, Leidos, Boeing and Lockheed Martin are prominent corporate entities that stud the show, a sort of murderous family of patrons. (You were victims of our products; we are thinking of you.)

Company statements attempt to link the Invictus show to the myth of company values and mutual benefit, a point bound to leave those aware of any nexus between arms production and casualty celebration queasy: the company produces the murderous hardware – war is business and stock value after all – but it also brings back the injured into the fold.

Jaguar Land Rover, for instance, notes “a commitment to furthering their legacy of support to the armed forces by helping former military personnel transition into civilian careers through job opportunities.” The company was proud in recruiting “over 700 ex-service men and women since 2013, creating opportunities to employees globally seeking bright futures in the automotive industry.”

Boeing, for its part, cheers “these warrior-competitors, honour their families, and help educate Australians about the contributions and sacrifices of military personnel here in Australia and around the world.” As it backs the Invictus Games, the company’s own website smoothly advertises its role in serving “the US Air Force, US Navy, the Marines and many US allies by producing and integrating precise, long-range and focused munitions.”

There are always various moments the promoters could look to in terms of how these warrior competitors perform. What mattered was turning up, and providing a good show of heart string pulling and tear jerking reaction.

During the Sydney Invictus games, several opportunities presented themselves. There was the wheelchair tennis player Paul Guest, whose PTSD was triggered by the whirring of an overheard helicopter. Dutch veteran Edwin Vermetten, a fellow competitor, was on hand to comfort him as paralysis took over, offering support by singing Let it Go from the movie Frozen. “We saw what mateship really looks like,” reflected the Duke of Sussex at his closing speech.

Prior to its opening, Nick Deane, writing in New Matilda, was troubled by the games’ throbbing sub-text, its colosseum air and undertone of manipulation. “There is a whiff of triumphalism in this (it is in the name of the games). Their spirit may be unconquered but they have, without exception, been severely beaten. Giving them a special name does not alter that.”

Servicemen and women for Australia, in particularly, were being celebrated, but had suffered in wars that lacked the backbone of necessity, lending a heavily tragic air to the proceedings. “In an objective assessment of them,” Deane notes, “no service personnel [participating] can legitimately claim to have been wounded in the defence of Australia.”

That entire spirit goes to those who promote the games: the very companies who prove indispensable to the military industrial complex that creates its global casualties. It is they who are also unconquerable, forever leaving behind the broken in their wake, they who place those in, to remember the words of William Ernest Henley, “a place of wrath and tears” where “the Horror of the shade” looms.

India: Call For Calm In Sabarimala Temple – OpEd

0
0

Millions of devotees of Lord Aiyappa in Sabarimala are extremely disturbed and feel hurt, when the Supreme Court of India rejected the traditional practice of not permitting women of certain age ground from visiting the Sabarimala temple. Obviously, the judges have taken a narrow and tunnel view of the issue and treated it as a mere gender issue of women being discriminated.

Very sound and logical arguments have been advanced by large number of thinkers and devotees as to why the traditional practices of Sabarimala temple should be continued and should not be disrupted. It has been pointed out clearly that Sabarimala temple is not against all women visiting the temple but only women in certain age group. It has also pointed out that in all Aiyappa temples all over the world , women of all age group are permitted entry.

While the Supreme Court judges have viewed the Sabarimala issue as a mere gender discrimination issue and rejected the importance of maintaining the traditional practices, the judges have failed to take note that the petition to the court was filed by not a member of the Hindu community but a non Hindu.

While judges thought it fit to give their ruling with regard to the traditional practice in one Hindu temple which is considered extremely sacrosanct by Hindus all over the world, it has conveniently kept its ears and eyes closed with regard to practices in other religions namely Islam and Christianity, where also there are some traditional practices applying restriction on women in certain circumstances.

For example, in the case of Islam , women are not allowed to pray in the mosque along with men. In the case of Christianity, there is restriction on women becoming pastors. Throughout the centuries, Christian theologians have reflected on this issue and the preponderance of them have concluded that the pastoral role is exclusively assigned to men. Why have Supreme Court judges in India, while taking a negative view of the traditional practice in Sabarimala temple of restricting women of certain age group, have not cared to discuss or comment on the restrictive practices on women in other religions.

Now that the Hindu outfits have filed review petition in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court judges would hear the case and give their verdict shortly, one has to keep the fingers crossed ,as to whether the judges would reverse their decision. Many people think that judges would not reverse the decision, as they have taken a definite view and are unlikely to agree with the arguments of the Hindu outfits, which would be the same arguments that were advanced during the earlier hearings.

While the Sabarimala devotees feel very sad about the turn of events, the annual festival in Sabarimala would commence shortly when millions of Sabarimala devotees will visit Sabarimala temple from all over the world, after observing strict code of conduct and celibacy for specified number of days, as per the traditional belief and practices.

In such circumstance, it is extremely distressing that Government of Kerala, in which state Sabarimala is located, has taken a tough attitude and is giving an impression by it’s utterances and acts that it would go to any extent to implement the verdict of the Supreme Court and perhaps may facilitate some rebel women even from non Hindus to visit the temple with heavy police escort and score a point for whatever reasons.

Already, many Hindus think that traditional practices of Hindu religion are being discriminated in India and protests are likely to become louder.

If Kerala government were to persist with determination to disrupt the traditional practice in Sabarimala in the name of implementing Supreme Court verdict, this is bound to lead to explosive situation and tension, which should be avoided at any cost.

Considering the possibility of Supreme Court not reversing it’s verdict and Government of Kerala continuing it’s aggressive stand and to avoid an explosive situation developing, Government of India should immediately promulgate an ordinance, ensuring that traditional practices in Sabarimala Aiyappan temple would continue. Such strategy was adopted by Government of India earlier in Tamil Nadu, when jallikattu issue became an explosive subject when Supreme Court banned it.

While the judgement of the courts should be respected , when large section of people feel aggrieved by the verdict of Court and to ensure maintenance of peace, Government of India would be absolutely justified in issuing an ordinance.

Judges give their ruling as per the prevailing laws and regulations enacted by parliament. Therefore, there is nothing undemocratic about such ordinance proclamation by Ggovernment of India, which would be ratified by the parliament later.

Erdogan Is In A Glasshouse: Is He Safe Throwing Stones? – OpEd

0
0

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s autocratic president, is a past-master at seizing the moment and turning it to his political advantage. The latest example is the Jamal Khashoggi affair, which he has managed masterfully, gaining a steadily increasing advantage over his prime rivals in the Muslim world – Saudi Arabia. But how secure is he against repercussions?

What Erdogan has sought, first and foremost, in his political career is absolute power. This he has managed to win by outwitting his formidable political opponents, both at home and abroad. Skilfully he managed a constitutional coup which first placed him in the presidency, and then redefined the role, function and powers of the office.

Along the way opposition centered around followers of Fethullah Gulen, an influential Turkish cleric who lives in the US. Gulen had followers at high levels in the Turkish establishment. Early in December 2013 Erdogan was furious to discover that, for more than a year, the police had been engaged in an undercover inquiry into corruption within the government and the upper echelons of his AKP party. He declared the police investigation a plot to discredit his government ahead of local elections in March 2014.

Those elections were the key to unlocking Erdogan’s ambitions. The AKP emerged as the strongest party, and back in office Erdogan successfully changed the constitution to permit him to remain as prime minister beyond the statutory three terms. Still in power he stood for president in 2014, and won. In the June 2015 general elections the AKP campaigned to enhance the presidential role to a nearly all-powerful position as head of government and head of state. The office of the prime minister would disappear, making way for a strong, executive president with the power to appoint cabinet ministers, propose budgets and appoint more than half the nation’s highest judicial body.

The president would also have the power to impose states of emergency.

The constitutional revision required endorsement by popular referendum, But popular support was evenly spread between the AKP and the Gulenists, and the result of the referendum seemed far from certain.

Then came the events of 15 July 2016.

In a chaotic night of violence, what appears to have been an attempted coup by a group of the Turkish military left at least 290 people dead and more than 1,400 injured. The confused sequence of events has never been fully explained.

Just before 11 pm, military jets were seen flying over Ankara, and a group of Turkish soldiers took over several institutions there and in Istanbul, where tanks rolled into the streets. In the capital, Ankara, bombs struck the parliament building, and a helicopter stolen by rogue pilots was shot down by an F-16 jet.

Erdogan was hundreds of miles away as these events unfolded. By the time he addressed the nation hours later, the situation was under control. On July 20 Erdogan, claiming that Gulen was behind the attempted coup, declared a state of emergency and instituted retribution of unprecedented severity. More than 110,000 people were arrested including nearly 11,000 police officers, 7,500 members of the military, and 2,500 prosecutors and judges. 179 media outlets were shut down, and some 2700 journalists dismissed.

In April 2017 the referendum on enhanced presidential powers duly took place. The result – a narrow 51 percent in favor and 49 percent against – confirmed the suspicions of those unconvinced about the nature of the coup the previous July. Erdogan might well have lost the referendum, and with it his bid for supreme power. had there not been a strong reason to remove opposition voices and to rally Turkish opinion against rebels seeking to overthrow the government.

Turkey’s state of emergency was maintained for two full years, during which Erdogan was able to govern with virtually dictatorial powers, jailing some 160,000 people judged to be political opponents. On July 8, 2018, just before the state of emergency was lifted, a new purge resulted in the sacking of a further 18,000 state workers, including soldiers, police and academics. Another TV channel and a further three newspapers were closed. In short, the Turkish state is as brutal and repressive a regime as one is likely to encounter anywhere in the civilized world, and a huge segment of the Turkish people is seething in resentment against it.

Erdogan has long sought to challenge Saudi Arabia as leader of the Sunni Muslim world. He has seized the political initiative whenever possible by claiming to represent genuine Islamic interests, as against Saudi’s long alliance and friendship with the West. Erdogan seized on US President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017 as on a gift from the gods. He convened a special meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, of which he was president. Presenting himself as the real Muslim defender of Jerusalem. he condemned Trump’s announcement and castigated the Arab world for its lacklustre response.

Over the Khashoggi affair Erdogan has managed to inflict major damage to the global standing of his Saudi rivals. Using the by-now fully compliant Turkish media, he has forced Saudi Arabia to retreat step by step in the face of mounting evidence of a pre-planned and brutal assassination. In his address to the Turkish parliament on October 23 he managed to imply that the Turkish investigation would be able to reveal a good deal more in due course.

Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS as he is known) is universally believed to have authorized the Khashoggi plot, and Erdogan’s master plan may be to discredit him to such an extent that his father, King Salman. would be forced to remove him from power.

However, to do so would be for the king to admit that MBS was indeed responsible for the Khashoggi affair. He is unlikely to take that course. If he did choose to counter the relentless anti-Saudi campaign emanating from Ankara, there is plenty in Erdogan’s questionable tenure of the Turkish presidency to draw on.


The Saudi Arabian Model: Blueprints For Murder And Purchasing Arms – OpEd

0
0

t reads like a swaying narrative of retreat. A man’s body is subjected to a gruesome anatomical fate, his parts separated by a specially appointed saw doctor – an expert in the rapid autopsy – overseen by a distinctly large number of individuals. Surveillance cameras had improbably failed that day. We are not sure where, along the line, the torturers began their devilish task: the diligent beating punctuated by questions, followed by the severing of fingers, or perhaps a skipping of any formalities. One Turkish investigator sniffing around the Saudi consulate in Istanbul saw such handiwork “like a Tarantino film.”

The result was clear enough: the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi went into the Saudi embassy on October 2 and never came out alive. (Even an attempt of the gathered crew of death to procure a Khashoggi double was noted.)

For aspiring authoritarians, the Saudi state is a model instructor. First came blanket denial to the disappearance: the Saudi authorities had no idea where the journalist had gone after October 2. On October 18, Riyadh officially acknowledged Khashoggi’s death. By October 21, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir had come to the conclusion that this had, in fact, been murder, and a mistake. “This was an operation where individuals ended up exceeding the authorities and responsibilities they had”.

Then, an improbable story of a fist fight developed through the media channels. (When one has to kill, it is best to regard the enemy as inappropriately behaved when they dare fight back.) In the presence of 15 Saudi operatives, this was all richly incredulous – but the Kingdom does specialise in baffling and improbable cruelties.

It was clear that distancing was fundamental, hence the cultivation of the “rogue” theory, with Saudi operatives taking a merry trip off the beaten path. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was happy to pour water on the suggestion. “We have strong evidence in our hands that shows the murder wasn’t accidental but was instead the outcome of a planned operation.” It had been executed “in a ferocious manner”.

The Turkish president has, however, danced around the issue of ultimate state sanctioned responsibility. Neither King Salman, nor Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, have been publicly outed in any statements as either showing awareness of the killing or ordering it. Prince MBS and his father are happy to keep it that way, severing their links with the killing as assuredly as the killers had severed the journalist’s fingers. This is evidenced by the Crown Prince’s own labelling of the act as a “heinous crime that cannot be justified”.

The Saudi Public Prosecutor has also decided to move the case from one of accidental killing (fist fights will do that sort of thing) to one of planned murder. A bit of cosmetic housecleaning has been taking place (another authoritarian lesson: look busy, seem engaged with heavy concern): 18 people have been arrested and two advisers sacked by the Saudi state. The Crown Prince, according to the official Saudi Press Agency, has chaired the first meeting of a committee established to reform the country’s intelligence services.

This authoritarian blueprint also implies a staying power in the face of other states who see Saudi Arabia as cash cow and security partner. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a rich appetite for foreign arms, a point not missed on the weapons makers of the globe. Some attrition is bound to take place: certain countries, keen to keep their human rights credentials bright and in place, will temporarily suspend arms sales. Others will simply claim disapproval but continue leaving signatures on the relevant contracts of sale.

Some ceremonial condemnations have been registered. Members of the European Parliament voted upon a non-binding resolution on Thursday to “impose an EU-wide arms embargo on Saudi Arabia.” Germany, temporarily concerned, has suspended arms sales to the House of Saud, with Chancellor Angela Merkel deeming the Khashoggi killing “monstrous”. Canada’s Justin Trudeau briefly pondered what to do with a lucrative defence contract with Riyadh worth $12 billion, only to then step back.

The Canadian prime minister did acknowledge that the killing of Khashoggi “is something that is extremely preoccupying to Canadians, to Canada and to many of our allies around the world” but has not made good any threats. His predecessor has become the ideal alibi. “The contract signed by the previous government, by Stephen Harper, makes it very difficult to suspend or leave that contract.” Cancellation would lead to penalties which, in turn, would affect the Canadian tax payer. How fortunate for Trudeau.

France, the United Kingdom and the United States remain the three biggest suppliers of military hardware to the kingdom, a triumvirate of competitors that complicates any effective embargo. Which state, after all, wants to surrender market share? It’s a matter of prestige, if nothing else. President Donald Trump’s reaction is already clear: a suitably adjusted lid will be deployed to keep things in check till matters blow over; in the meantime, nothing will jeopardise a $110 billion arms deal. Business with a theocracy can be patriotic.

The French angle has been reserved and coldly non-committal. “Weapons exports to Saudi Arabia are examined in this context,” claimed foreign ministry deputy spokesman Olivier Gauvin, meaning that his country’s arms control policy was made on a case-by-case basis. For France, keeping Riyadh in stiff opposition to Tehran’s regional ambitions has been a matter of importance in its Middle Eastern policy for decades, a point reiterated by President Emmanuel Macron in April. And the Kingdom pays French arms exporters well: between 2008 and 2017, Saudi Arabia proved the second biggest purchaser of French arms (some 11 billion euros), with 2017 being a bumper year with licenses coming to 14.7 billion euros. Riyadh can expect little change there.

Britain’s Theresa May, in the tradition of elastic British diplomacy (condemnation meets inertia), has insisted that her government already has the appropriately stringent rules on arms exports, another way of shunning any European resolution that might perch on human rights. Such strictness evidently does not preclude the eager oil sheiks of Riyadh, though Britain’s foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt did suggest the Khashoggi killing, should it “turn out to be true” would be “fundamentally incompatible with our values and we will act accordingly.” Such actions are bound to be symbolic – much money has been received by the British arms industry, with earnings of £4.6 billion coming from sales to the Kingdom since the Saudi-led war on Yemen began in 2015. Sowing death, even if through the good agency of a theocratic power, is lucrative.

The fate of Khashoggi, cruel and ghastly, seems a piddle of insignificance in that light. “Brexit,” urged Philippe Lamberts, MEP and leader of the Group of the Greens, “must not be an excuse for the UK to abdicate on its moral responsibilities.” That abdication, on the part of Britain and its arms competitors, took place sometime ago.

China’s Game Of Chess And Romance In Central Asia – OpEd

0
0

In the 19th century Central Asia was the region called “Great Game,” the contest between British Empire who settled their footprints in India and the Imperial Russia. The game of dominance continued for many years due to abundant of natural resources in the form of oil, gas and hydrocarbons, which shifted the “Great Game” into the “New Great Game”. Later, the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 led to creation of many independently states, most important five central Asian states namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

The world order was a product of western dominated institutions or manipulated by these countries. China becoming a new actor in this era by emerging economy keen interest in infrastructure projects and connectivity between regions to save guards their interest and completion of “One Belt One Road” imitative. Its a linkage between central Asian states to Europe. As, Alfred Thayer Mahan’s  in his book “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History”, in which Harold Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman emphasized “ the importance of controlling land and the Eurasian Heartland as a pivot point between Europe and Asia”. Historically, the region was under control by Soviets but due to major events occurred during 19th century the balance of power shifted, China become a new strategic partner or player in Central Asia. Mao Zedong’s famous theory on military strategy said “Where the enemy advances, we retreat. Where the enemy retreats, we pursue”.

The romantic era of China foreign policy in Central Asia started on September 3, 2013, when Xi Jinping the reformist of new China in both economic and military terms, visited four central Asian states to sign multiple agreements related to trade, energy and infrastructure projects under the umbrella of OBOR. The Chinese strategy towards was differently coined by Peking University professor of International Relations Wang Jisi as “March West”. According to this perspective China rebalancing their interest from Asia- Pacific to Central Asia and Middle East. America never try to increase their influence in this region, when US withdraw its forces from Afghanistan the airbase of Kyrgyzstan close in 2014 which indicates America was no more in this region.

The “March West” reflects that America was creating hurdle for Chinese to maintain friendly relations with ASEAN counties, US approaching East Asia, this particular mind set favors Chinese government to increase and established strong holds in Central Asia, Middle Asia and South Asia in case of South Asia India was a major actor to curtail Chinese interest sponsored by America.

The Chinese have a broad comprehensive agenda on table that primarily focuses on “One Belt One Road” idea to review the old Silk Road by covering new maritime lands as well as road lands. It’s not an economical but political agenda. To fulfill this agenda Chinese government constructed Gwadar port in Arabian Sea the deepest port in this region gives huge incentives to China in form of reduction of money.

In the meanwhile many other factors compel Chinese government to evaluate central Asia; Security and energy economic interest. Firstly after the collapse of Soviet Union newly created states on world map have not enough ability to construct a governmental structure, mismanagement and fragile economy are main factor. Security situation of central Asians states always worried Chinese authorities. The presence of ETIM in these states, Xinjiang which shares border 3,700km a long strip of land need attention because of Uyghur separatist posed a serious threat to domestic instability. Subsequently creation of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation SCO along with Russia in order to deal with three evils “separatism, religious extremism and terrorism”.

Energy has become a backbone of Chinese economy, with China consuming 20% of the world’s energy. To fulfill needs of huge economy China is building two pipelines, “Central Asian – China gas pipeline or China-Kazakhstan gas pipeline” covering Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to Xingjian province.

Kazakhstan has become Chinese most attractive pattern in energy sector. With its massive resources about 37 billion barrels of oil, 3.3 trillion cubic meter gas reserves world largest resources in current era. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Turkmenistan has the largest reserves of natural gas with approximately 265 trillion cubic feet 2012. Kazakh Minister for Investment and Development Zhenis Kasymbek said Chinese investment in 51 industrial projects exceed $27 billion. “This year we plan to put into operation six Kazakh-Chinese projects worth 363 million dollars and we will begin construction work on five projects worth 623 million dollars. The total number of projects is 51, worth more than 27 billion US dollars”.

In addition to that, energy security, infrastructure building and an effort to curb the American influence in Central Asian states, this win-win engagement is of vital interest for China in Central Asia, as derived from the Five Principles of China’s Foreign policy.

*Wajih Ullah is a student of Politics and International Relations in International Islamic University, Islamabad.

Sri Lanka: New Political Situation With Sirisena-Rajapaksa Alliance – Analysis

0
0

In the last couple of months, the South Asian region has seen a trend of uncertain political changes. Since the end of July, Pakistan followed by Maldives, have seen a transformation in their political leadership with new policy directions towards this region.

On the October 26, India’s southern island neighbor, Sri Lanka, also experienced a sudden shift of governance with the sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe by the President Maithripala Sirisena. The President had claimed that “the name of a high profile Minister had surfaced during investigations of the assassination plot by the Criminal Investigation Department, which had been suppressed due to political interference.” (Sunday Times) This had been justified by the President as being the main reason for the removal of the Premier Wickremesinghe and his Cabinet. Unfolding this event, the unity government comprising of United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and United National Front (UNF), the historically opposing ideological party alliances had collapsed with the UPFA pulling out of the national government.

Just after a few hours, the President Sirisena had appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as the new Prime Minister and declared it constitutional under the 19th amendment. The President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka had also stated that “When a coalition partner left the unity government, the Cabinet automatically stood dissolved. Accordingly, the Prime Minister, too, ceased to hold office. In such a situation, the President is empowered to appoint a new Prime Minister who, in his opinion, commands the support of a majority of members in Parliament.”

However, the outgoing Prime Minister has challenged this move as being unconstitutional since he has a parliamentary majority of 106 members as compared to Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Paramuna (SLPP) and Sirisena’s UPFA combined coalition comprising of 95 members. Hence, now to form a government both Mahinda and Wickremesinghe need to prove a parliamentary majority of 113 in a 225-member parliament.

Currently, the Parliament has been postponed for three weeks by the Sri Lankan President and it has been anticipated that this could be a move by Sirisena-Mahinda alliance to gain time to consolidate members from the smaller parties for the required majority in the coming days.

There are several challenges that the Sirisena-Rajapaksa government might face after coming to power. One being the presence of a strong opposition mainly from the parties dominated by Tamil and Muslim communities. Also, the current coalition that Rajapaksa is building will be dominated by cross over parliamentary members with different ideologies. Furthermore, the new former President as a Prime Minister now would not enjoy the same privileges as before and Sirisena as the head of all the three forces would be enjoying absolute powers. Rajapaksa on assuming office, would also face the challenge of foreign debts mainly borrowed from China along with the rising oil prices.

There will also be a need to find a reasonable settlement of gaining a greater Sri Lankan stakeholdership over the leased out vital nerve centres. Lastly, it would be important for the government to settle the minority issues by pursuing accommodative political settlements.

Meanwhile, the Western world is asking the new Sri Lankan government to act as per the constitution. On similar lines, the closest friendly neighbor India is closely observing the unfolding events in Sri Lanka. As an academician, one can argue that Rajapaksa’s current foreign policy approach could be more favorable towards India as compared to his previous policy position from 2005 to 2015. This reasoning is justifiable as just a month back, Mahinda Rajapaksa had visited India to deliver a lecture on Indo-Sri Lanka relations and during this visit Rajapaksa had simultaneously met the Indian Prime Minister.

With this background, India might have an advantage with Sirisena-Rajapaksa government to implement stronger foreign relations with the neighboring island country. In the recent past, India’s more neutral approach and non-interference policy has also made it succeed in the Maldives scenario, where India was able to reconcile its foreign policy with Ibrahim Solih’s victory. It is clear that there is a chance for India and the international community to engage more proactively with the Sirisena-Rajapaksa government such that a conducive environment can be created for the South Asian region.

*Srimal Fernando a research scholar at Jindal School of International Affairs ( JSIA) , India and an Global Editor of Diplomatic Society for South Africa and Megha Gupta, a scholar of Masters in Diplomacy, Law, Business at Jindal School of International Affairs, India

Sri Lanka: Rajapaksa Assumes Duties As Prime Minister

0
0

Mahinda Rajapaksa assumed duties as the new Prime Minster of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on Monday at the Prime Minister’s Office.

Several Members of Parliament and the Secretary to the Prime Minister, Sirisena Amarasekara were present at the occasion.

Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn-in as the new Prime Minister before President Maithripala Sirisena on Friday.

Last week, Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena sent a letter, to Ranil Wickremesinghe that as the appointing authority, he was removing Mr Wickremesinghe from the position of Prime Minister under the clause 42 (é) of the Costitution. This letter was set through the Secretary to the President.

Additionally, the new Cabinet was sworn in on Monday, according spokesperson for the Prime Minister said.

 

 

Reforming The Faith: Indonesia’s Battle For The Soul Of Islam – Analysis

0
0

Nahdlatul Ulama, with 94 million members the world’s largest Sunni Muslim movement, is bent on reforming Islam.

The powerful Indonesian conservative and nationalist group that operates madrassahs or religious seminaries across the archipelago has taken on the ambitious task of reintroducing ijtihad or legal interpretation to Islam as it stands to enhance its political clout with its spiritual leader, Ma’ruf Amin, slated to become vice president as the running mate of incumbent President Joko Widodo in elections scheduled for next April.

In a 40-page document, argued in terms of Islamic law and jurisprudence and scheduled for publication in the coming days, Nahdlatul Ulama’s powerful young adults wing, Gerakan Pemuda Ansor, spells out a framework for what it sees as a humanitarian interpretation of Islam that is tolerant and pluralistic in nature.

The initiative is designed to counter what many in Nahdlatul Ulama, founded in 1926 in opposition to Wahhabism, see as Islam’s foremost challenge; the rise of radical Islam. The group that boasts a two million-strong private militia defines as radical not only militants and jihadists but any expression of political Islam and asserts that it is struggling against the weaponization of the faith.

While it stands a good chance of impacting Islamic discourse in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, it is likely to face an uphill battle in making substantial headway beyond Indonesia despite its links to major Muslim organizations in India, the United States and elsewhere. It also could encounter opposition from the group’s more conservative factions.

Mr. Amin, the vice-presidential candidate, is widely viewed as a conservative who as issued fatwas against minorities, including one in 2005 denouncing Ahmadis, a sect widely viewed by Muslims as heretics. Violent attacks on Ahmadis by extremists have since escalated with mob killings and the razing to the ground of their homes.

Mr. Amin is also believed to have played a key role in last year’s mass protests that brought down Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, aka Ahok, an ethnic Chinese Christian, and led to his sentencing to two years in prison on charges of blasphemy against Islam.

The vice-presidential candidate appears to have since mellowed. In a recent speech in Singapore hosted by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Mr. Amin projected himself as an advocate of an Islam that represents a middle way and stands for balance, tolerance, egalitarianism, non-discrimination, consultation, consensus and reform.

Mr. Amin’s speech appeared to be not out of sync with the reformist thinking of Ansor.

To achieve its goal, Ansor hopes to win Middle Eastern hearts and minds in a roundabout way by targeting European governments as well as the Trump administration in a bid to generate pressure on Arab regimes to promote a tolerant, pluralistic form of Islam rather than use the faith to garner legitimacy and enhance regional influence.

To further that goal, Yahya Staquf, a diminutive, soft-spoken general secretary of the group’s Supreme Council and a member of Mr. Widodo’s presidential advisory council, met in June with US Vice President Mike Pence and Reverend Johnnie Moore.

Mr Moore is an evangelist who in May was appointed by President Donald J. Trump as a member of the board of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Mr. Staquf also paid in June a controversial visit to Israel where he met with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu against the backdrop of Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu’s office trumpeted the meeting as an indication that “Arab countries and many Muslim countries (are) getting closer to Israel” despite Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians becoming with US backing more hard line. The meeting served to strengthen Nahdlatul Ulama’s relations with Mr. Trump’s evangelist, pro-Israel supporters.

While making significant inroads in the West, Nahdlatul Ulama risks being identified with autocrats like United Arab Emirates crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed who strives to depoliticize Islam as a means of ensuring the survival of his regime. It also risks being tainted by its tactical association with Islamophobes and Christian fundamentalists who would project their alliance as Muslim justification of their perception of the evils of Islam.

Nahdlatul Ulama’s association could further bolster the position of evangelists locked into battle with expanding Islam along the 10th parallel, the front line between the two belief systems, with Nigeria and Boko Haram, the West African jihadist group, at its core.

If successful, Nahdlatul Ulama’s strategy could have far-reaching consequences. For many Middle Eastern autocrats, adopting a more tolerant, pluralistic interpretation of Islam would mean allowing far greater social and political freedoms. That would likely lead to a weakening of their grip on power.

Nahdlatul Ulama’s credibility in pushing a tolerant, pluralistic interpretation of Islam rides in part on its willingness to subdue its own demons, first and foremost among which sectarianism manifested in deep-seated prejudice against Muslim sects, including Shiites and Ahmadis. That may be too tall an order in a country in which ultra-conservative Islam remains a social and political force.

As a result, Nahdlatul Ulama’s battlefields are as much at home as they are in the larger Muslim world. Proponents of the reform strategy chose to launch it under the auspices of the group’s young adults wing in an admission that not all of Nahdlatul Ulama’s members may embrace it.

Moreover, the group’s meetings at times coincide with clashes between its militia and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a banned non-violent organization that seeks to re-establish the caliphate.

The most recent clash occurred last week on the eve of a meeting in Yogyakarta of the Ansor-sponsored Global Unity Forum convened to stop the politicization of Islam. Attendees included Mr. Moore as well as Imam Umer Ahmed Ilyasi of the All India Imam Organization and imams from the United States.

Beyond militants in Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama’s foremost rival is Turkey.

It is a battle that is shaped by the need to counter the fallout of a $100 billion, four decades-long Saudi public diplomacy campaign that enjoyed tacit Western support to anchor ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim Islam in communities across the globe in a bid to dampen the appeal of post-1979 Iranian revolutionary zeal. The campaign created a breeding ground for more militant and violent strands of the faith.

The battle for the soul of Islam finds it most geopolitical expression in the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Turkey as well as Iran. The battle with Turkey has come to a head with the killing earlier this month of journalist Jamal Khashoggi while visiting the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul to certify his divorce papers.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan drove the point home by exploiting the Khashoggi crisis to advise religious leaders that “Turkey with its cultural wealth, accretion of history and geographical location, has hosted diverse faiths in peace for centuries, and is the only country that can lead the Muslim world.”

If Nahdlatul Ulama couches its position in terms of Islamic law and jurisprudence, Mr. Erdogan’s framework is history and geopolitics. “The Turkish president’s foreign policy strategy aims to make Muslims proud again. Under this vision, a reimagined and modernized version of the Ottoman past, the Turks are to lead Muslims to greatness,” said Turkey scholar Soner Cagaptay.

Nahdlatul Ulama’s focus may not be Middle Eastern geopolitics. Nevertheless, its strategy, if successful, would significantly impact the region’s political map. In attempting to do so, the group may find that the odds are humongous, if not insurmountable.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images