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

Ron Paul: Censorship And Gun Control Will Not Make Us Safe – OpEd

0
0

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh is being used to justify new infringements on liberty. Of course, opponents of gun rights are claiming this shooting proves America needs more gun control. Even some who normally oppose gun control say the government needs to do more to keep guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill.” Those making this argument ignore the lack of evidence that background checks, new restrictions on the rights of those alleged to have a mental illness, or any other form of gun control would have prevented the shooter from obtaining a firearm.

Others are using the shooter’s history of posting anti-Semitic comments on social media to call for increased efforts by both government and social media websites to suppress “hate speech.” The shooter posted anti-Semitic statements on the social media site Gab. Gab, unlike Twitter and Facebook, does not block or ban users for offensive comments. After the shooting Gab was suspended by its internet service provider, and PayPal has closed the site’s account. This is an effort to make social media websites responsible for the content and even the actions of their users, turning the sites’ operators into thought police.

Some social media sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter, are eager to silence not just bigots but those using their platforms to advocate for liberty. Facebook has recently banned a number of libertarian pages— including Cop Block, a site opposing police misconduct. Twitter has also banned a number of conservatives and libertarians, as well as critics of American foreign policy. Some libertarians say we should not get upset as these are private companies exercising private property rights. However, these companies are working with government and government-funded entities such as the Atlantic Council, a group funded by NATO and the military-industrial complex, to determine who should and should not be banned.

The effort to silence “hate speech” is not just about outlawing racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic speech. The real goal is to discredit, and even criminalize, criticism of the welfare-warfare state by redefining such criticism as “hate.” It is not just progressives who wish to use laws outlawing “hate speech” to silence political opponents. Some neoconservatives want to criminalize criticism of Israel for the nonsensical reason that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” Other right-wing authoritarians wish to expand hate crime laws to include crimes committed against police officers.

Ironically neoconservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are among the biggest purveyors of real “hate speech.” What could possibly be more hateful than speech advocating perpetual war? Cultural Marxists are also guilty of hate speech with their calls for both government and private violence against political opponents, and for the use of government force to redistribute property. Just about the only individuals advocating a political philosophy not based on hate are those libertarians who consistently advance the non-aggression principle.

Preserving the right to free speech is vital to preserving liberty. All who value freedom should fight efforts to outlaw “hate speech.” “Hate speech” laws may initially be used to target bigoted and other truly hateful speech, but eventually they will be used to silence all critics of the welfare-warfare state and the authoritarian philosophies that justify omnipotent government. To paraphrase Ludwig von Misses, libertarians must fight hate speech—including the hate speech emanating from Washington, D.C.— with the “ideas of the mind.”

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.


The West’s Belarusian Problem: ‘Better Lukashenka In Minsk Than Russian Tanks In Brest’– OpEd

0
0

Poland and its Western allies face serious problems in dealing with Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s repressive regime, but none is more difficult than addressing the conundrum reflected in the observation of some that “better Lukashenka in Minsk than Russian tanks in Brest.”

That conclusion is suggested by Serhii Pelesa, the host of a program on the Belsat news agency directed at Belarus but based in Poland; and it means that the West can only push Lukashenka so far on human rights lest it risk a Russian intervention that would lead to an even worse situation (belsat.eu/ru/news/luchshe-lukashenko-v-minske-chem-russkie-tanki-v-breste/).

That leaves many in the West and perhaps even more in Belarus unhappy given the changes they would like to see in Belarus, but the possibility this notion captures underscores that there is something worse for Belarus and the West than the current situation – and that there are those in Moscow who would like to see it happen.

But Pelesa and the Polish experts he has spoken with agree on something else: this situation is also unsatisfactory for Lukashenka who would like to get more from the West than it is prepared to give but who can’t afford to take the kind of actions that would allow that to happen.

Any significant liberalization, however welcome in Belarus and the West, would be viewed with alarm in Moscow and might lead Vladimir Putin to invade and attempt to absorb Belarus much as he seized Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014, an action the West has not yet shown any willingness to put the kind of obstacles in his path that might forestall that from happening.

And so the game is likely to go on in much the same way as it has in recent months, with Lukashenka remaining repressive at home and navigating between supporting Moscow on some things and the West on others, hoping that there will be a breakthrough that will his loss of power and prevent Putin’s tanks from moving westward.

Croatia Indicts Serb Paramilitary For Torturing Prisoner

0
0

By Anja Vladisavljevic

The unnamed former Serb paramilitary was charged with abusing and torturing a captured Croatian soldier in the town of Vukovar in November 1991.

The County State Attorney’s Office in Osijek on Monday charged a 50-year-old Serbian citizen with committing war crimes against a Croatian prisoner of war.

The Serbian, a member of the Leva Supoderica paramilitary unit, is accused of abusing and torturing the prisoner, who was a 21-year-old member of Croatia’s First Guard Brigade in Vukovar in November 1991, along with two other members of the unit.

The Croatian Interior Ministry said in a statement that the victim was brought from the Ovcara area to the Velepromet industrial storage site, where Croatian civilians and members of the Croatian armed forces were detained after the fall of Vukovar to Serbian forces.

The paramilitaries then took him to a house in Vukovar, where some members of the Serbian paramilitary unit was based.

After being abused, he was taken to a camp in Serbia which, together with other prisoners from the Vukovar area, where he was held until a prisoner exchange in 1992.

The former paramilitary who was charged cannot be arrested because he is not in Croatia.

Vukovar was besieged from late August 1991 by the Yugoslav People’s Army and Serbian paramilitaries.

The defenders of the Croatian town surrendered on November 18, after which all the non-Serb population was expelled, and a number of prisoners of war and civilians were deported to prisons and detention camps in Serbia, while 260 people were executed at the nearby Ovcara farm and in other places.

Ovcara became the biggest mass grave of the war in Croatia.

Over 3,000 soldiers and civilians died during the siege of Vukovar and its aftermath, 86 of them children.

After being under the control of rebel Croatian Serbs for four years, Vukovar was peacefully reintegrated into Croatia under the Erdut peace agreement in 1996 and 1997.

In January this year, a Serbian court jailed eight former members of the Serb Territorial Defence force in Vukovar for a total of 101 years for the massacre of around 200 people at Ovcara.

Spain: Government Takes Steps Towards Exhuming Remains Of Francisco Franco

0
0

Spain’s Council of Ministers adopted two decisions that affect the exhumation of the remains of the dictator Francisco Franco. On the one hand, it rejected the appeal for reversal against the exhumation procedure and the transfer of his mortal remains, lodged by the Benedictine Abbey of Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos.

It also rejected the challenge filed by a relative of the dictator against the procedural investigation to recognize and extend the rights of those who suffered persecution or violence during the Civil War and the Dictatorship.

The Deputy Prime Minister of the Government, Minister for the Presidency, Parliamentary Relations and Equality, Carmen Calvo, said that the “government is proceeding with absolute normality” in the administrative procedure to exhume the remains of Francisco Franco. She also announced that this week’s Council of Ministers may take the last administrative step in the procedure.

Carmen Calvo underlined that “under no circumstance” can the remains of the dictator stay in a place that may be a forum for tribute or glorification. “We want the collaboration of the Catholic Church to be addressed to the purpose that the law states, which is that Francisco Franco does not lie in a State or is glorified in any way whatsoever”, she said.

In this regard, she clarified that she conveyed this issue last Monday to the Secretary of State of the Holy See, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and received “a clear and straight-forward response: the Church will not oppose the exhumation of his remains”.

Sri Lanka: Sirisena Says Has Majority To Form ‘Formidable Government’

0
0

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said that he has the majority of 113 to form “a formidable government.”

Sirisena said that farmers, government servants, fishermen, and the working mass who were gripped by the economic principles of Ranil Wickremesinghe should be freed.

“The decisions of the previous government were not taken by the President, Cabinet of Ministers or the Senior Ministers, but by a swarm of butterflies headed by the former Prime Minister,”  Sirisena said.

Sirisena made the comments while was addressing the ‘Rata Rakina Jana Mahimaya’  people’s protest rally at the Parliament Junction. The protest was held under the patronage of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Rajapaksa in support of the new government, which was appointed a week ago.

Sirisena said he was happy to be on the same political platform with Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa after exactly four years. Speaking to the large crowds that braved the heavy rains, the President said that the appointment of Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister by removing former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was Constitutional and legal. He said this appointment is not just the changing of two persons or two bodies to that chair, but also the removing of the vision that followed foreign agendas and was harmful to the state.

Sirisena said he appointed a new person who is state friendly and who has a clear vision for the country and one who would not bow down to foreign agendas.Amidst the thundering applause of the massive crowds, the President also said that the new government headed by him without any doubt would have a majority of 113 in Parliament.

Therefore, President Sirisena said the United National Party should not worry about that and he through the new government would strengthen Parliament. The President also requested former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to let the new government proceed with its business without any hindrance.

Sirisena said that he together with Prime Minister Rajapaksa would make the necessary changes in the country to solve the economic problems. He also said that they would totally dedicate themselves to solving the issues of the people in the Northern areas. He said during his recent telephone conversation, the UN Secretary General assured him of the fullest support towards Sri Lanka for any decision taken to strengthen democracy in the country.

Therefore, Sirisena said that new government would forge ahead to create a prosperous country and establish the peace in the country while maintaining a friendly foreign policy.

Philippines: Latest Typhoon-Induced Landslide Death Toll Climbs

0
0

By Karl Romano

Search and retrieval crews have pulled 16 bodies from a storm-induced landslide that buried a government building in the mountainous northern Philippines, officials said Monday.

Efforts continued to find another 12 people believed buried in the landslide in the town of Natonin in Mountain Province, local disaster chief Ruben Carandang said.

“We have recovered, on my record –identified with names and addresses – 14 from ground zero and two outside of ground zero. So we have a total of 16,” Carandang told reporters.

Typhoon Yutu slammed into the Philippines last week, dumping torrential rains which covered most of the north still recovering from devastation wrought by Typhoon Mangkhut in September.

Mangkhut wreaked havoc along a similar path and caused landslides that hit the northern and central Philippines, killing at least 150 people.

Last week, Yutu forced thousands to flee their homes in the mountainous north as it crossed over the main island of Luzon.

On Monday, Carandang said retrieval operations would continue until the end of the week. Disaster relief officials were relocating residents away from landslide prone areas in the north.

The Department of Agriculture reported the typhoon damaged crops valued at U.S. $34.2 million (1.8 billion pesos) covering 90,052 hectares (222,000 acres).

Natonin Mayor Mateo Chiyawan was supposed to terminate the retrieval efforts on Monday but has extended until the end of the week to allow a group with special equipment to try to find those still missing.

Public works crews have cleared debris from the highway to improve accessibility to the area.

Local mines and geosciences head Benigno Espejo said more civilians might need to be relocated to safer areas. He said that as early as 2015, a series of small landslides in Natonin led to the soil erosion last week.

Myanmar To Repatriate First Round Of Rohingya From Bangladesh

0
0

By John Zaw

Myanmar will soon accept the first batch of over 2,000 Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh as part of a repatriation deal signed with Dhaka last year.

Aung Kyaw Zan, deputy permanent secretary at Myanmar’s foreign affairs ministry, said they will accept over 2,260 Rohingya at a rate of 150 per day beginning from Nov. 15.

“As a next phase, another 2,000 people will be repatriated. We will steadily work out the repatriating process,” Aung Kyaw Zan told ucanews.com.

The first round of 2,260 Rohingya are made up of 485 families from a list of 8,000 of the ethnic Muslim minority submitted by Bangladesh to Myanmar in February.

Nyi Pu, chief minister of Rakhine State, and other senior officials held meetings in Maungdaw on Nov. 4. They also inspected homes and other facilities at the Ngakhuya and Hla Po Khaung reception centers where the returning Rohingya will be housed, reported state-run Global New Light of Myanmar.

Calls for suspending repatriation

A meeting of the Joint Working Group of Bangladesh and Myanmar officials was held last week to oversee the repatriation of more than 800,000 Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh to escape Myanmar’s military crackdowns in Rakhine State.

Most of that number fled to Bangladesh after a Myanmar military crackdown in August 2017 began following attacks on security personnel by Rohingya insurgents.

Rights groups have called for suspending the plan as they say it is not safe for Rohingya to return to Rakhine State where it is feared they will continue to face repression and discrimination.

Bill Frelick, Human Rights Watch’s refugee rights director, said Myanmar’s government keeps talking about returns but it has done nothing to allay the Rohingya’s fears of being returned to face the same violence and oppression they fled.

“If Bangladesh moves forward on repatriations without the U.N., it will squander the international goodwill it has accrued over the past year as a host to Rohingya refugees,” Frelick said in a statement on Nov.2.

Rakhine protest Rohingya return

More than 1,500 ethnic Rakhine from Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung regions took to the streets in Maungdaw on Nov. 4 to protest the Rohingya resettlement.

Win Thein, an ethnic Rakhine and one of the leaders of the protest, said he called on the government not to resettle Rohingya in southern Maungdaw, which has seen outbreaks of sectarian violence since the 1940s.

“Our sovereignty is very important, more important than prioritizing human rights of the Bengalis (Rohingya) who are illegal immigrants and not citizens of Myanmar,” Win Thein told ucanews.com.

Most people in Myanmar insist on referring to the Rohingya as Bengalis, implying that they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. However, vast numbers of Rohingya have lived in Myanmar for generations.

Win Thein added that local ethnic tribes such as Rakhine, Mro and Daingnet are very concerned about their security. He called for the government to build more ethnic villages in northern Rakhine because “Bengali villages have overwhelmed the region.”

The returnees need to be scrutinized, he said. “And they must be put in a separate place closely watched by security officials prior to a verification process,” he said.

Hatred and bigotry towards Rohingya is deeply rooted in Rakhine State.

Egypt Mulls Banning Wearing Niqab In Public Places

0
0

A member of the Egyptian parliament has proposed a bill to prohibit niqab – full-face veils – in public places, local media sources reported, according to Middle East Monitor.

Ghada Agami, the deputy chairman of the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, has submitted a draft law to the country’s House of Representatives, prohibiting the wearing of the full-face veil in public places, referring to what she said “has become a source of sedition in Egyptian society in recent years.”

The bill, which was reported to have received huge support from various state-owned media, suggested an EGP1,000 ($55.81) fine for any women who wear niqab in public places. The bill also stipulated that the punishment should be doubled in case of the violation repetition.

Agami told state-owned Ahram Online that the bill came as a result of “the increasing number of terrorist attacks carried out by individuals under the niqab covered.”

“It [the bill] aims to change the moderate character of Islam in Egypt and reflects the extremist ideology of Salafist conservatives’ movements,” the Egyptian parliamentarian explained, noting to a recent law by the Algerian government, which banned women from wearing the full-face veils in workplaces.

“France has also had the same ban since 2010 after it had determined that it is necessary from a security standpoint and for protecting society from divisions,” she pointed out, stressing that women “can wear the niqab inside their homes, but citizens must reveal their faces in public places and official institution.”

Agami was the owner of a parliament bill – which was rejected by the General Union of Egyptian Abroad – that had called for enforcing citizens who are living abroad to transfer $200 to support the Egyptian economy. She was also reported to be the one behind the draft law, which had called for an increase in the transfer fees of the Egyptian bodies returning home to be buried.

The MP was also the owner of the parliament’s “birth-control and family planning” bill, which stipulated that the state subsidies should be revoked for families with more than three children. Agami was one of the main supporters of the Egyptian government’s move to concede the two islands, dubbed Tiran and Sanafir, to Saudi Arabia, an agreement that has caused outrage among the majority of the Egyptian public and the country’s embattled political opposition.


The ‘Crisis’ In Sri Lanka: Invented By Western Media – OpEd

0
0

By Dr Palitha Kohona*

The change of Government in Sri Lanka, following the unceremonious sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasingha by President Maithripala Sirisena, has given rise to a crescendo of alarmist commentary in the Western media, which is slowly seeping in to the non-Western media as well. One after the other, the Western media outlets have taken a critical approach to the change and have begun to characterize the replacement of the Prime Minister as a “Crisis”.

Suave, comfortable in a European life style, fluent in the only European language he knows, English, neo liberal in thinking, and from an elite background, the former Prime Minister is fondly addressed as “Ranil” by the European diplomats and the dominant Western media representatives.

He moves in Western circles with ease and is the darling of the mainly Western funded NGOs. Ranil enjoys an easy relationship with the Occident, having cultivated individuals and institutions there over the years.

The sacking of Ranil was unexpected, caught the Western diplomats by surprise and they reacted with undiplomatic shock. It disrupted a securely established network of relations and convenient expectations. The discomfiture in this group was palpable. Certain heads will roll and promotion prospects of others will suffer in some diplomatic establishments of the West.

Being caught so totally unprepared is a reflection of the effectiveness with which Ranil and his cohorts managed the Western diplomatic community and Western media representatives along with the active concurrence of the mainly Western funded NGO community and resident American and European nationals.

They simply swallowed the government line, living in a make believe world that did not reflect real world of Sri Lankan politics, and were blissfully unaware of the gathering storm of popular resentment. Others appear to have just hidden their heads in the sand and fervently hoped that the suggestions of a brewing storm was just a bad dream.

In a strange use of terminology, the Western media has chosen to characterise Ranil’s sacking as demonstrating a “lack of respect for democratic institutions” such as the Parliament despite the reams of legal justification provided by experts and the explosion of popular support that followed for the action. It is probably a forlorn hope to expect them to tag the sacking by a fond color like the “Orange Revolution – Ukraine” or a season “Arab Spring”. Both of which enjoyed Western sponsorship, now quietly forgotten due to the mayhem that followed.

The irony is that the same commentators never expressed their derision in such strong terms when local government elections kept being postponed sine die, when a parliamentary report on the scandalous Central Bank bond scam by Ranil’s close friend Arjuna Mahendran was sidelined by a prorogation of parliament, or when Ranil engaged in unruly and unparliamentary behaviour in Parliament when confronted with this issue.

The agonised concern of the West would have sounded more convincing had there been a more even handed approach and the commentary of Western diplomats would have found more sympathetic listeners. There are lessons for both sides here.

But more importantly, consistent with established diplomatic practice, it would have been more appropriate if the Western diplomatic community and the UN representative had been more circumspect and even handed in expressing their support for democracy rather than instinctively rushing to endorse only Ranil as the guardian of democracy. In this instance, the measured tones of the Indian and Australian response suggests a greater appreciation of the real situation.

A diplomat needs to read the tea leaves of domestic politics more cleverly. There was little room for speculation or for error in the case of Sri Lanka unless it was self-induced.

The vast majority of the population of Sri Lanka was clearly hoping for a change in the leadership of the country. When the party owing allegiance to Mahinda Rajapaksa won over 239 of the 340 local government bodies contested in February the message was stark. The huge and adoring crowds that flocked to listen to Mahinda conveyed an obvious message.

In September, a peoples’ march ‘Janabalayaa Kolambata,’ organized by the youth wing of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s SLPP brought over 300,000 people from across the country  to Colombo, demanding an immediate dissolution of the government.

A similar crowd gathered in pouring rain when the President and his new Prime Minister addressed them in front of the Parliament on October 5. University students, industrial unions, farmers, even university professors and doctors had been mounting protest action against government economic policies.

The strikes affecting various parts of the economy were to a considerable extent a reflection of the disaffection felt by the people. The voices of the disgruntled had reached a crescendo but appears to have by passed the Western diplomatic community.

The heads of the highly influential Buddhist establishment, including the prelates in Kandy, and the minority Catholic establishment had forcefully reflected the popular sentiment. Sadly, either the West chose to ignore the clear signs on the ground or simply misread the signs.

Within an hour of the announcement of the sacking of Ranil, Sri Lankan media broadcast images of people lighting celebratory fire crackers across the country including in the Tamil-dominated Jaffna which is still trying to recover from the devastation of the terrorist conflict.

Consistent with the traditional form of celebrating victory, many businesses provided milk rice to passersby along main roads. Leaders of business had already begun to express their dissatisfaction with Ranil’s lack of firm leadership, the absence of direction in economic policies, the implementation of policies without much consultation with the key stake holders, the erratic policy implementation, the lack of confidence in the business community, etc. The signs were obvious, only if one wished to take note.

The President articulated many of these sentiments a few days after the sacking. He highlighted Ranil’s inability to connect with the common people and his disrespect for those outside a small circle of the Colombo-based elite, and his disregard for the country’s sovereignty and his tendency to favour foreign business over locals.

Ranil’s lack of enthusiasm to bring the Central Bank scammers to justice had annoyed the President who was elected on a platform of introducing good governance. He obviously felt aggrieved by Ranil’s supercilious attitude towards him as President.

The President said: “Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe’s political conduct was unbecoming of civilized politics and belittled the victory achieved risking my life in 2015. I believe that Mr Wickremesinghe and his group of closest friends, who belonged to a privileged class and did not understand the pulse of the people conducted themselves as if shaping the future of the country was a fun game they played.”

The President was more scathing and critical in his comments at the address on  October 5 when he said: “Corruption and fraud spread widely in the country.”

PM Wickremasinghe, was increasingly seen as a puppet of the West, particularly the U.S., supporting their geo-political agenda in Asia. Sri Lanka has a history of rebellious politics and being perceived as pro West is not necessarily a guarantee of popular support.

The West also has been trumpeting the dangers posed by Rajapaksa, allegedly an ally of China. He has also been described as authoritarian and power hungry. This may have gone down well with certain sections of the Indian establishment but not necessarily with the vast majority of Sri Lankans who entertain historical sympathies for China.

While it is true that Rajapaksa obtained significant loans from China to fund development projects, to characterise him as pro-China is a convenient excuse for not understanding him well or simply succumbing to assessments provided by Ranil and the NGO community.

During his presidency, Rajapaksa turned to China for funding assistance only after being snubbed by India and international funding agencies. The EU had withdrawn the GSP Plus facility from Sri Lanka and the U.S. had pulled the Millennium Challenge Account.

After ending the terrorist inspired conflict Rajapaksa was in a hurry to develop the country and China was willing to help. It is important to remember that while Rajapaksa borrowed from China to fund development projects, (ONLY 8% of Sri Lanka’s external debt is owed to China) that also after lengthy negotiations, it was Ranil who injudiciously gave the port of Hambanthota on a 99 year lease to Chinese companies.

Rajapaksa could hardly be described as anti-West when his choice for advanced studies for two of his sons was England (and not China) and three of his brothers have homes in the U.S. He visited the U.S. almost every year when he was President.

The narrative purveyed in the Western media characterises the situation in Sri Lanka as a “crisis”. This reflects the views of mainly Western funded NGOS and of Ranil.

“The current constitutional crisis is unprecedented in that Sri Lanka has never had the legality and legitimacy of its government called into question in this way. We regret and deplore the course of action that has resulted in this unnecessary crisis and democratic backsliding,” the Centre for Policy Alternatives, a Western funded local NGO said in a statement.

But those who make this assessment have not challenged the sacking before the courts which incidentally consist predominantly of judges appointed in the last three years, during Ranil’s tenure as Prime Minister. Now the Speaker of the Parliament, perhaps egged on by Ranil’s party and encouraged by the stance taken by the West, has refused to recognize the new Prime Minister.

The U.S., the UK and some other European countries have publicly articulated concerns about Russian and even Chinese interference in their domestic electoral processes, but the behaviour of their own missions in Colombo has not contributed to enhancing their reputations with the majority of the people. The contradiction looms large to all observers.

Again this might be a case of misreading the mood of the majority or simply dismissing the wishes of the majority despite all their purported commitment to championing democracy. Western ambassadors have met publicly with the ousted PM, Ranil, NGOs and opposition groups and issued statements from their capitals calling for the “Immediate convening” of parliament and “restoration” of democracy. Many in Sri Lanka have queried the propriety of such blatant interposition in the domestic political processes.

During a meeting with the President on October 30, the EU Ambassador Tung-Lai Margue warned that if democratic norms and constitutional provisions are not observed in handling the on-going political crisis in Sri Lanka, the EU may consider withdrawing the trade concessions the island nation enjoys under the General System of Preferences Plus (GSP Plus).

A similar threat by Japan and the U.S. has been reported in the pro-Western media. One notes an unfortunate return to the days when the West insensitively threatened and pulled out financial concessions from the previous Rajapaksa administration forcing it to reluctantly move further towards China.

There were also statements demanding that Sri Lanka abide by the Resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka, especially the much derided Res 30/1, despite almost the entire country having objected to its provisions and some even suggesting that the then Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, who cosponsored it despite the overt opposition of the Ambassador in Geneva, be hauled before the courts for treason. One is confused by the approach of the U.S. which has recently, on the basis of national interest, denounced even solemnly concluded treaties.

Sirisena has quietly told the Western envoys that they appeared to be “unaware of the pulse of the people”. The President has advised the envoys to understand the common man’s thinking, and that the people are with him. He has also told the envoys that it is best to leave the governance of Sri Lanka to Sri Lankans and that the government and the people of Sri Lanka know best what is good for them.

*Ambassador Dr Palitha Kohona, Former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations.

EU Set To Test AI Guards To Protect External Borders

0
0

By Alexandra Brzozowski

(EurActiv) — An EU-funded project is developing an ‘intelligent control system’ to test third-country nationals who reach the EU’s external borders, including a sophisticated analysis of their facial gestures.

The Intelligent Portable Border Control System, iBorderCtrl, is a series of multiple protocols and computer procedures which are meant to scan faces and flag ‘suspicious’ reactions of travellers who lie about their reasons for entering the Schengen area.

The AI-based screening system will check up to 38 facial micro-gestures of travellers – like eye direction, pupil dilation, minimal voice changes and micro-expressions undetectable to human guards – which were collected during a series of questions asked by the border agents at the checkpoints.

iBorderCtrl was developed with funding from the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and is coordinated between 13 EU-wide partner institutions around Europe.

The European Commission contributes €4.5 million to the development of the new tool, created in September 2016 and managed by a Luxembourg company called European Dynamics. The conclusion of the test phase is planned for August 2019.

While aiming to tighten the control of Europe’s borders and contribute to the prevention of crime and terrorism, according to the Commission it is also meant to speed up traffic of the rising number of people entering the EU every year.

“We’re employing existing and proven technologies – as well as novel ones – to empower border agents to increase the accuracy and efficiency of border checks,” project coordinator George Boultadakis of European Dynamics told the Commission after the pilot was announced.

“iBorderCtrl will collect data that will move beyond biometrics and on to biomarkers of deceit,” he added.

The pilot project consists of a two-stage procedure and works on a voluntary basis. In a first step, travellers who seek to enter the EU have a pre-screening test at home while filing an online application where they have to upload various documents including pictures of their passport, visa and proof of funds.

They will then answer questions adapted to the individual applicant from a computer-animated border guard over a webcam interview, where the responses will be analysed by an AI “deception detection” system developed at the Manchester Metropolitan University.

According to the Commission, the system is, however, not meant to replace human border guards: “Border officials will use a hand-held device to automatically cross-check information, comparing the facial images captured during the pre-screening stage to passports and photos taken on previous border crossings.”

The results are accessed at the border checkpoints, where travellers, in a second step while handing over their passport and visa details on a terminal, undergo a second screening.

“After the traveller’s documents have been reassessed, and fingerprinting, palm vein scanning and face matching have been carried out, the potential risk posed by the traveller will be recalculated. Only then does a border guard take over from the automated system,” the Commission added.

“It does not make a fully automated decision. It provides a risk score,” Keeley Crockett of Manchester Metropolitan University explained in a promotional video.

Individuals flagged as “low risk” will go through a short re-evaluation of their information for entry, while, if the AI system flags anything suspicious, “higher-risk passengers” will be subjected to more detailed checks.

The project will be tested in real conditions in Hungary, Greece and Latvia.

According to the project website, the 175 km section on the main migration route, the border between Hungary and Serbia, is considered a hotspot. To “test the proposed system in a relevant environment”, the Hungarian National Police will run tests at two border checkpoints with “significant traffic.”

The Greek pilot will test five different cases: pedestrians, bus, vehicle, passenger and freight train crossings, while the border between Greece and FYR Macedonia is considered a hotspot. The Latvian pilot faces 31 border crossing points (5 airports, 10 seaports, 3 railways, 13 roads).

The UK, Germany, Poland, Germany, Spain and Cyprus have expressed interest to participate in the project following initial trials.

Accuracy and bias

As a member of the iBorderCtrl team told New Scientist, early testing revealed that the digital border guard only had a 76% success rate, but the team is “quite confident” that can be raised to 85%.

Nevertheless, critics point out that there are many factors that leave room for error.

Concerns about accuracy are raised due to the fact that participation is voluntary and “offers ease of control for travellers willing to cooperate with authorities to speed up the border control.”

“In such circumstances, I do not see what ground truths may exist in order to assess the robustness, reliability or accuracy of the system, nor how the relevant algorithms will be trained to detect biomarkers for deceptive behaviours,” said Antoinette Rouvroy, a researcher of the FNRS at the Center for Research in Information, Law and Society (CRIDS).

“Or we would have to presume that illegal immigrants and potential criminals would voluntarily opt in for the automatic detection, which is not very plausible,” she added.

In the past, studies have also proven that facial recognition algorithms have an extensive problem with biases and affect especially women and minorities disproportionately.

For example, facial recognition algorithms designed by IBM, Microsoft, and Face++ had error rates of up to 35% higher when detecting the gender of darker-skinned women compared to lighter-skinned men, according to a study published earlier this year.

“Before deploying such AI systems in any sector of activity or government, a careful assessment should be made of the unavoidable biases involved in any system of detection, classification and forward-looking evaluation of people and behaviours.

“Digitisation is a transcription of reality, and there is no neutral transcription of reality,” said Rouvroy.

India: Provoking Polarization In Assam – Analysis

0
0

By Giriraj Bhattacharjee*

On November 1, 2018, at least five Hindu Bengali daily-wage workers, including three of a family, were killed by suspected United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (ULFA-I) militants in Bisonimukh village, in Tinsukia District. The victims were identified as Shyamal Biswas (60), Ananta Biswas (18), Abhinash Biswas (23), Subal Das (60), and Dhananjay Namasudra (23). Following the attack, Pallab Bhattacharyya, Special Director General of Police (DGP-Special Branch) of the Assam Police, told the media, “We suspect the hand of ULFA-I or some combined militant group. Seven days back, there was an intelligence input about attacks in Bengali-dominated areas, but there was nothing specific.”

As SAIR has repeatedly noted earlier, while general intelligence inputs regarding possible attacks are rife, specific and actionable intelligence is rarely available to Security Forces (SFs) on the ground.

On November 2, 2018, however, ULFA-I denied responsibility for the attack, declaring, “We, the United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent) would like to make it clear that our organisation does not have any involvement in the firing incident that occurred on 1st November 2018 at Sadiya Saikhowaghat in Tinsukia District.”

The November 1 incident was the worst single incident, in terms of civilian killings, recorded in Assam since August 5, 2016. Fourteen civilians were killed when suspected National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS) militants opened fire at a weekly market at Balajan Tiniali in Kokrajhar District in the 2016 incident. Seventeen civilians were also injured in the incident. Later, SF personnel deployed in the area killed one of the attackers.

In the interim, the State recorded just one major incident (involving three or more killings) with civilian fatalities in the State, resulting in the death of three civilians. On August 12, 2016, three Hindi speaking civilians were killed by suspected ULFA-I militants in Bamunbari village under Philobari Police Station in Tinsukia District. Since 2010, at least 200 civilians have been killed in at least 19 major incidents in Assam.

On October 13, 2018, four people were injured when a low-intensity blast took place in the Sukleshwar Ghat area near Pan Bazar, a prime commercial hub, in capital city Guwahati. ULFA-I ‘commander-in-chief’ Paresh Baruah claimed responsibility:

We apologize to the four people who got injured. Our objective is to resist all groups who are trying to give shelter to Hindu Bengali immigrants from Bangladesh through the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and the NRC.

Significantly, polarization on religious and linguistic lines has sharpened in the State ever since the Supreme Court monitored exercise of updating the National Register fors Citizen (NRC) was initiated in 2015, to identify bona fide residents of Assam. The final draft NRC published on July 30, 2018, has tentatively identified four million (40.07 lakh) persons whose nationality is suspect. Earlier, the first draft NRC Published on December 31, 2017, had left out 14 million people.

In 2005, under a tripartite agreement between the All Assam Students Union (AASU), and the State and Union Governments, it was decided that the National Register for Citizens (NRC) would be updated towards the implementation of the 1985 Assam Accord. The Assam Accord was signed after a six-year long ‘anti-foreigners’ agitation led by AASU and other regional bodies, between 1979-1985.

The Union Government had assured citizenship to ‘persecuted minorities’ from neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who had entered India (including Assam) before December 31, 2014, through a proposed Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016. The organizations representing Assamese and other ‘indigenous’ groups fear that the passing of the Bill would encourage more illegal immigration and legitimize the illegal immigrants already present, reducing the ‘son of the soil’ to a minority. The organisations representing Bengali Hindus, however, support the Bill, seen as a ‘savior’ of ‘persecuted’ Hindus. The Bill has also led to divided opinion in the predominantly Assamese speaking Brahmaputra and Bengali speaking Barak Valleys. As a result, some Barak Valley-based organizations have revived an old demand of granting Union Territory status to the Valley.

Apparently some ‘leaders’ of both the Pro-Talks faction of ULFA (ULFA-PTF) and ULFA-I have seized the opportunity created by anxieties over the NRC, in an attempt to regain lost legitimacy. ULFA-PTF led by Arabinda Rajkhowa entered into talks with Union Government on September 3, 2011. Reports indicate that the peace talks with ULFA-PTF are ‘nearing completion’ and hence taking a pro-Assamese position can bolster their diminished credentials.

According to media reports of October 24, 2018, ULFA-PTF leader Mrinal Hazarika had declared, “We will never allow the passing of the Bill. If the Bill is passed, Assam must be ready to revisit the era of 1983. The government must be ready to face massacre-like situations.”

Earlier, on May 9, 2018, Hazarika’s comrade from undivided ULFA’s ‘28th battalion’ Jiten Dutta had also threatened to withdraw from the ceasefire and take up arms if the Union Government passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. “If the Centre passes the bill, the Kakopathar Camp will withdraw from ceasefire”. He had added that they “won’t refrain from taking up arms if the people so desire”. He claimed that Anup Chetia and other senior ULFA-PTF leaders like Prabal Neog and Antu Choudang were with him.

Similarly, ULFA-PTF ‘general secretary’ Anup Chetia on May 9, 2018 stated,

I have already opposed the Bill at the JPC [Joint Parliamentary Committee] hearing as the chief convener of the North East Indigenous People’s Forum. I told them that if the Bill is passed, Assam will burn and the situation will be similar to that in the 1980s and 1990s.

Not surprisingly, two ULFA-PTF, leaders Mrinal Hazarika and Jiten Dutta, were detained for questioning in Guwahati in (Kamrup Metro) and Sivasagar District, respectively, on November 2, 2018, for making provocative speeches.

Additionally, the detection of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM-Assam module), and sleeper cells tied to Pakistan’s external intelligence agency Inter-Services-Intelligence, as well as other extremist Islamist organisation; such as the Popular Front of India (PFI), indicates that several actors are poised to fish in Assam’s troubled waters. According to a report dated December 24, 2017, intelligence agencies had intercepted messages by PFI sent to West Asian countries, linked to a campaign launched against the updating of the NRC. In the public eye ‘illegal immigration’ has become synonymous with Bengali (Bangladeshi) Muslims, the political rhetoric also differentiates between Bangladeshi Hindus as ‘persecuted victims’ and Muslims as ‘infiltrators’. Further, the proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 will take care of Hindus not included in the updated NRC. However, those Muslims not included in the NRC list will become ‘stateless’, as Bangladesh has refused to accept them as citizens. Bangladeshi Information and Broadcasting Minister Hasanul Haq Inu, in an interview to Indian media, on July 31, 2018, stated,

Everyone knows it is a century-old ethnic conflict in the State of Assam. In the last 48 years, no Indian government has raised the issue of illegal immigration with Bangladesh; the situation needs to be dealt by the (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi government in New Delhi, which is capable of handling it judiciously. It has no relation to Bangladesh.

Indeed, NRC and the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 are two sensitive issues which have the potential to derail the relative peace of recent times. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), the State has recorded 17 fatalities (six civilians, one SF trooper, 10 militants) in 2018 (data till November 4). This is the lowest fatality figure recorded, on year on year basis, since 1992, with under two months left in the current year. The lowest fatalities prior to this, 26, were recorded in 2017.

State Finance Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma after the November 1 incident, however, argued, “ULFA [undivided] has been attacking Bengali- and Hindi-speaking people for the last 20-25 years, long before the NRC exercise. Such attacks happened even during the Congress regime when there was no discussion on NRC.”

Indeed, according to the SATP database, since 2007, at least 142 non-locals have been killed in Assam.

Insurgent violence in the State, founded on the anti-‘foreigner’ movement, claimed 8,302 lives between 1992-2018. The situation in the State is once again becoming volatile, and the active destabilization and provocation of various political formations, including elements of the ruling party as well as surviving constituents of the insurgency – both active and those engaged in a peace process – are adding fuel to the fire. Extraordinary sagacity will be required to avert another conflagration in Assam – and this is a resource in acute deficit at both the national and State level.

*Giriraj Bhattacharjee
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Pakistan: Festering Wound In Balochistan – Analysis

0
0

By Tushar Ranjan Mohanty*

Five construction workers of non-Baloch ethnicity were shot dead while another three suffered injuries in an attack near Ganz, some 15 kilometers west of Jiwani town in the Gwadar District of Balochistan on October 31, 2018. According to official sources, the labourers were working at a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)-related private housing scheme on Peshkan-Ganz road, which links Gwadar with Jewani, when a group of unidentified assailants riding motorcycles appeared on the scene and opened fire. Security officials identified four of the deceased as Naeem Ahmed and Hunzullah, residents of Karachi (Sindh); Irshad Ali of Sukkur (Sindh); and Muhammad Shakir of Multan (Punjab). The identity of the fifth deceased is yet to be ascertained.

Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) ‘spokesperson’ Azad Baloch, claiming responsibility for the attack, stated,

The site attacked today was part of CPEC project… Today’s attack is a clear message to China and all other countries that Balochistan is an occupied territory. We warn all military and other constructions companies to immediately stop working on their projects in Gwadar or they will be targeted by Baloch fighters.

He added that any agreement with China and other countries by Pakistan, without the consent of the Baloch nation and before the freedom of Balochistan, has no legal standing. Further, that Pakistan on October 29, 2018, organised a conference of 26 countries – Asian Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Political Affairs – in its attempt assert the legality of its illegal occupation in Balochistan. Warning against the ongoing ‘colonisation’ of Balochistan he stated,
China and Pakistan are settling Punjabis and Chinese in Gwadar and other areas of Balochistan’s coastal belt to turn the Baloch into a minority under their expansionist designs… If the international community fails to fulfil their responsibilities and turns a blind eye to the Pakistani and Chinese colonisation of Balochistan, then the Baloch nation will have no other option but to target all non-Baloch settlers in Balochistan… The BLA will continue to resist against the occupation of Baloch Ocean and coastal belt…

He added that China and Pakistan were building around 70 housing schemes under the exploitative CPEC colonisation project.

On August 11, 2018, six persons – among them three Chinese engineers – were injured in a suicide attack on a bus in the Dalbandin area of Chagai District in Balochistan. The bus carrying 18 Chinese engineers was being escorted by Frontier Corps (FC) troops to the Dalbandin airport from the Saindaik copper and gold mines, when a suicide bomber tried to drive his explosives-laden vehicle into the bus. “The explosives-laden vehicle exploded near the bus on Quetta-Taftan Highway – and as a result three Chinese engineers, two FC soldiers and the bus driver were injured,” an unnamed Levies official stated. Saifullah Khatiran, Deputy Commissioner of Chagai District, disclosed that the engineers were working on the Saindak project, a joint venture between Pakistan and China to extract gold, copper and silver from an area close to the border.

Jiand Baloch, a BLA ‘spokesperson’, had then stated, “We targeted this bus which was carrying Chinese engineers. We attacked them because they are extracting gold from our region, we won’t allow it.” In a statement issued on Twitter, the BLA identified the suicide bomber as Rehan Baloch, who died in the attack, as the elder son of BLA’s ‘senior commander’ Aslam Baloch.

On May 4, 2018, six ethnic Punjabi labourers were killed and one injured in an incident of firing in the Laijay area of Kharan District. Levies sources said the labourers, who hailed from eastern Punjab, were working on a mobile tower and were sleeping in tents at the site when unidentified militants on motorcycles opened fire on them. The assailants escaped unhurt after the attack. There was no claim of responsibility.

There is persistent discontent among the ethnic Baloch with regard to CPEC, as the Province is at the heart of the USD 62 billion scheme – a massive series of projects that includes a network of highways, railways and energy infrastructure spanning the entire country. CPEC is a flagship project in China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This discontent constitutes an enduring threat to Chinese engineers, workers and people associated the constituent projects from Baloch nationalists, who consider it part of a ‘strategic design’ by Pakistan and China to loot Balochistan’s resources and eliminate the Baloch culture and identity.

Highlighting the existing discontent, the then Balochistan Chief Minister Mir Abdul Quddus Bizenjo on April 11, 2018, had said that his province was being neglected by the Federal Government in the CPEC project: “More than Rs. [PKR] 5,000 billion is being spent on the CPEC, but Balochistan is not receiving even one per cent of it.”

Earlier, on March 5, 2017, pro-Government Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M) president Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal had asserted that no development could be seen in Balochistan under CPEC, and that this project would not benefit its people, as not a single development project had been launched in the region as part of the mega project. He had also argued that CPEC was not meant for the development of Balochistan, but rather for converting the Baloch nation into a “minority on its own soil.” Sardar Mengal alleged, further,

The Punjab is looting resources of the small provinces for its own interest. We do not ask anything from the Punjab, but want ownership of all the resources of Balochistan. The people of Balochistan, and not Sardars and Nawabs, deserved and owned these resources.

Asserting that CPEC would convert the Baloch people into minorities in their own homeland, Noordin Mengal, a human rights campaigner from Balochistan, stated that, with an influx of outsiders as a result of the project, the identity of the Baloch was being threatened.

Much earlier, on August 13, 2016, dubbing China, a ‘great threat’ to the Baloch people, United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Balochistan representative Mehran Marri had argued,
China really-really is spreading its tentacles in Balochistan very rapidly, and therefore, we are appealing to the international community. The Gwadar project is for the Chinese military. This would be detrimental to international powers, to the people’s interest, where 60 percent of world’s oil flows. So, the world has to really take rapid action in curbing China’s influence in Balochistan in particular and in Pakistan in general.

Indeed, the Senate (upper house of the National Assembly) was informed on November 24, 2017, that 91 per cent of the revenues to be generated from the Gwadar port as part of CPEC would go to China, while the Gwadar Port Authority would be left with a nine per cent share in the income for the next 40 years. This was disclosed by the then Federal Minister for Ports and Shipping, Mir Hasil Bizenjo, after senators expressed concern over the secrecy surrounding the CPEC long-term agreement plan, with many observing that the agreement tilted heavily in China’s favour. Balochistan will not get a single paisa from the revenue, because ports are a federal subject and no steps were taken to make an exception for the impoverished Balochistan province.

The Gwadar Port is the epicentre of whole of CPEC project in Pakistan, yet the residents of the city have a hard time getting drinking water on a daily basis. In order to address the drinking-water shortage in Gwadar, the Federal Government has announced many desalination plants, but none has yet materialized.

Most of the other CPEC projects are for power generation, as Pakistan was facing a severe power shortage. CPEC projects are expected to generate almost 10,000 megawatts of electricity for the national grid. But again, Balochistan has not benefited from this. Of the 21 electricity-generation plants planned under CPEC, only one is in Balochistan, and that will also supply electricity to the national grid and not exclusively to Balochistan.

Provoked by a sense of deliberate neglect of the province and systematic loot of its natural resources, the Baloch militant groups have been targeting non-Baloch workers and people associated with CPEC. Militants trying to disrupt construction of CPEC projects in Balochistan have killed 66 persons since 2014. According to Colonel Zafar Iqbal, a spokesperson for the construction company Frontier Works Organisation (FWO), “The latest figure has climbed up to 44 deaths and over 100 wounded men on CPEC projects, mainly road construction in Balochistan, which began in 2014.” Since September 7, 2016, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), another 22 persons have been killed in different CPEC related projects across the province (till November 4, 2018).

The latest attack, on October 31, came a couple of days before newly elected Prime Minister Imran Khan’s departure for China on a three-day official visit. Khan’s visit evoked considerable interest as it comes in the wake of his past criticism of CPEC projects. On October 6, 2018, Khan declared that Pakistan was reviewing the projects under CPEC to safeguard the interest of the people in Balochistan Province, adding, “Balochistan will get its due share, whatever it may be, in the CPEC.” Unfortunately, the Province has been getting such assurances for a long time, without any visible positive movement on the ground.

*Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

History Repeating: Mohammed Bin Salman And The Khashoggi Affair – OpEd

0
0

By Enrico Trotta

When in 1953 Saud Abdulaziz al-Saud rose to the throne of Saudi Arabia, the notion of modernization was still alien to the Kingdom. Breaking new ground, the new King pledged to devote part of the skyrocketing oil revenues to education, civil infrastructure, and even to an embryonic welfare program. As a result, Saud managed to portray himself as a fervent reformer, eliciting the sympathy of the White House. Saud didn’t stop there and, defying the Saudi clergy, he made a point of opening education to women. The new monarch was shaking the Kingdom’s cultural foundation to the core.

Saud’s political trajectory uncannily resembles Mohammed Bin Salman’s (MBS). The young Crown Prince’s penchant for reforms has been immediately accompanied by the not-so-guarded optimism of Riyadh’s traditional allies. The Saudi anachronism, a perpetual albatross for Washington’s agenda in the Middle East, seemed on the verge of evaporating at the longed-for hands of MBS. Again, women rights lay at the heart of the reforming effort. In 1956, Saud Abdulaziz sponsored the opening of Dar al-Hanan, the first school for women in the Kingdom. Since 2018, Saudi women can drive.

The two monarchs are also united by their yearning for a dominant role in the region, even at the cost of fanning the flames of war. The Yemeni adventure, the Qatar crisis, and the increasingly vitriolic posture against Iran constituted a baptism of fire for the Crown Prince. However, this very baptism of fire demonstrated that MBS, who has yet to formally complete his accession to the throne, is already eager to sink his teeth into the traditional intricacies of the region. As the White House drunk in the Crown Prince’s bravado, the latter laid the foundation for a more muscular and less risk-averse reorientation of Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy.

Again, MBS’s bold initiatives parallel Saud’s groundbreaking accession to the throne. In the early 1950s, Saud wasted no time reshaping Riyadh’s hitherto prudent stance in the Middle East. He embraced Pan-Arabism and rode Nasser’s coattails, sending shivers down Eisenhower’s spine. When the King grew weary of living in Nasser’s shadow, he tried to convince Washington that he was the sole counterpoise to Cairo’s revolutionary fervor. Saud’s proposal didn’t cut much ice with the Oval Office. Indeed, in 1958, Nasser managed to win over Washington by suppressing communism in the newly formed United Arab Republic. As a result, the White House was now pursuing Nasser rather than Saud. Undeterred, the Saudi King orchestrated a bumbling plan to assassinate Nasser and bribe his protégé al-Sarraj. When the latter informed on the Egyptian president, it was open season on the Saudi kingdom. Not only didn’t Saud enhance the Kingdom’s clout, but he had also managed to expose Riyadh to Cairo’s vitriolic propaganda barrage. Saud had overplayed his hand and embarrassed the Royal Family. Eventually, at his brothers coaxing, the King agreed to step down in 1958.

The assassination of Khashoggi catapulted MBS into the same predicament faced by Saud 60 years ago. Whether the Crown Prince is directly implicated in this tragic affair is immaterial. He has already offered a propaganda gold mine for the regional adversaries of Saudi Arabia, enabling them to cast a pall on MBS’s real commitment to change. The Crown Prince’s pledges to modernize represented the sole fig leaf that insulated him from the repercussions of his recent failures: Qatar managed to thrive under the 2017 blockade and even enhance its influence in North Africa; the Yemeni imbroglio, in turn, produced the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Coupled with Donald Trump’s recent statements about the Kingdom, Riyadh has never appeared so vulnerable.

In addition, the aftermath of the Khashoggi affair will likely take a toll on Washington-Riyadh cooperation in the Middle East. In the 1950s, King Saud’s injudicious attempt to assassinate Nasser obliterated at a stroke years of painstaking negotiations between Cairo and Washington, as the Egyptian leader immediately laid the King’s machinations at the feet of the White House. Similarly, even in the absence of sanctions by Washington, the murder of Khashoggi will likely induce the United States to temporarily keep Saudi Arabia out of the international limelight. Consequently, new arms deals will be conceivably placed on the back burner and talks on the proposed Arab NATO will likely slow down. Should Riyadh’s rivals ratchet up the pressure on the Kingdom, MBS will wrestle with an unsettling conundrum: either to endure the consequences of its newfound vulnerability or to procure arms from another source, offering Russia the opportunity to revive the moribund S400 deal. Either way, Washington will hold its breath.

The stark similarities in Saud’s and MBS’s fall from grace offer an insight into these two monarchs’ perceptions of reforms. For his part, Saud pushed domestic reforms insofar as they enabled him to challenge Nasser’s ascendancy in the Arab world. Analogously, MBS intuited that his pledges to modernize had ingratiated him with Riyadh’s Western allies, granting him the latitude to embark on an increasingly aggressive foreign policy. Neither succeeded in parlaying domestic reforms into tangible gains on the regional stage. Both ended up overplaying their hands.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t need to break with the past, it should learn from it. Utilizing reforms as a smokescreen for an unbridled regional agenda is a recipe for disaster, both for the royal family and its allies. Any genuine attempt at modernization should be predicated on the desire to better respond to the exigencies of the Saudi society, whereas MBS, following in Saud’s footsteps, has proved to regard reforms as no more than political expedients. Tragically, the assassination of Khashoggi brought to the fore all the shortcomings of the Crown Prince’s self-serving approach to modernization.

In 1958, the royal family salvaged the Kingdom’s prestige by endorsing the accession of Faisal Abdulaziz. Eschewing the excesses of his predecessor, the incoming monarch shifted Riyadh’s focus inward, favoring a low-key foreign policy while implementing a phased reform program. The abolition of slavery and his Ten-Point Program were the fruits of this effort. Unlike Saud, MBS will conceivably remain at the helm of the Kingdom. However, with Riyadh now in the global crosshairs, the Crown Prince has little choice but to take his cue from Faisal, i.e. scaling down Saudi Arabia’s regional involvement and pursue modernization for the sake of it, without ulterior motives.

As the Kingdom is increasingly engrossed in planning ahead, the Crown Prince may now find that the solution to his problems lies in one of Saudi Arabia’s most precious assets: its past.

 

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

The Mussels From Brussels: 48 Hours In Belgium’s Classy Capital

0
0

By Rachel McArthur

It’s not the first destination that comes to mind for a European mini-break, but Brussels turned out to be quite the surprise.

With a couple of days to spare in the UK, my travel partner and I decided to find the quickest — and most affordable — trip, and our search took us to the Belgian capital.

Tickets and hotel booked, we jetted off with little expectations except wanting to find the perfect waffle.

Landing in Brussels at noon, we headed straight to our hotel to drop off our bags, and were delighted it was a 12-minute drive from the airport. Our temporary home of choice was the ultra-affordable ($96 per night) Aloft Brussels Schuman in Place Jean Rey, a fuss-free four-star establishment that impressed with its laidback atmosphere and street-art-inspired rooms.

We began our sightseeing at the European Parliament Hemicycle — the main office of the members of the European Parliament. It certainly offered a great insight into the world’s largest transnational parliament’s role and powers. Entry is free, but you’ll need ID.

After that, we headed to one of the city’s most famous landmarks: Grand Place. Breathtakingly beautiful is an understatement; this UNESCO World Heritage Site — home to the city’s Town Hall and main museum — is so impressive it’s hard to take in its true scale.

A few blocks away is the Manneken Pis, a bronze statue that’s too cheeky to feature a picture of, but is so well-known we had to include it in our tour. The sculpture is said to be the best-known symbol of the people of Brussels, representing their “sense of humor and independence of mind.”

You could spend hours exploring this area. We stumbled upon Comic Strip Route, a trail featuring 50-odd colorful murals that represent the city’s comics heritage (Brussels is the birthplace of The Smurfs and Tintin, among others).

It was time to find a snack, and during our walk we passed by a tearoom that had a long queue outside. Surely a good sign? Turns out we were at Maison Dandoy, a Belgian institution dating back to 1829, known for its speculoos and waffles.

It was worth the wait. We had the best waffle we’ve ever eaten: freshly cooked, crispy on the outside, and fluffy on the inside. The addition of speculoos-flavoured ice-cream was delightful.

Later we made a final stop at Frit Flagey for a cone of Belgian frites — another oh-so-tasty local delicacy.

On our second day, we headed to the Atomium, an iconic building built in 1958 and renovated at a cost of €26 million in 2006. It’s certainly peculiar; but it’s the only place that offers a 360-degree view of Brussels. Strike it lucky with clear skies, and you’ll get a great experience.

Next to it is the mildly amusing Mini-Europe, a park that displays, you guessed it, mini replicas of monuments in the European Union, at a scale of 1:25. Cool spots were Big Ben — let’s face it, it will probably be demolished post-Brexit next year — and a real piece of the Berlin Wall.

A short walk away is the Brussels Expo. We came across a “Star Wars: Identities” exhibition that appealed to our inner nerd. Upcoming events include “Walking with Dinosaurs” and the Brussels Motor Show.

With the end of our trip fast approaching, there was just time for an early dinner. We saved the best dining experience to last. Mussels are a must-have, and we couldn’t have found a better place than Le Zinneke, a charming bistro serving up over 69 mussel dishes. We opted for the signature Fisherman’s Style — a delightful pot served in a vegetable and herb mix, with a side of Belgian fries. Each pot contains over a kilogram of mussels and, although the friendly staff may advise you take one each, we’d suggest sharing.

Brussels and its friendly people were a pleasant surprise, and we’d definitely return. And with its most famous foods being waffles, chocolate, fries and mussels, it’s the perfect stop for a halal break.

No, Voting Doesn’t Mean You ‘Support The System’– OpEd

0
0

By Ryan McMaken*

I admit it. I voted

In my home state of Colorado, all voting is by mailed paper ballots. That means, if you’re a registered voter, the county clerk sends you a ballot every election.

And then — at least in my case — it sits there on a table near my desk.

One is supposed to fill it out and then mail it back. Or drop it off in one of the mailbox-like boxes scattered around the city.

Sometimes I do it.

This time around, as the ballot sat there on the table, I kept thinking about the proposed tax increases I could vote “yes” or “no” on.

Like many states in the Western half of the United States, this state makes frequent use of ballot initiatives and referenda in elections. Voters are asked to vote up or down any number of regulations and taxes which the policymakers will be more than happy to implement if they can muster a “yes” from the majority of voters.

I’m certainly not willing to stand in line at a polling place, and I don’t care about getting an “I Voted!” sticker. But I had to admit the opportunity cost of sending in the ballot was really quite low. So, as I am not a big fan of new taxes, I filled out the ballot according to my whims, and sent it in.

Does Voting Mean You Support the Regime?

Nothing about this little anecdote would strike most people as remarkable in any way.

Since at least the nineteenth century, though, there has been a debate over whether or not voting somehow means the voter has agreed to submit to — or even support — whatever the state does. In some cases, libertarians and anarchists who agree with the “voting = consent” claim conclude that voting is therefore immoral, or perhaps even a form of violence.

Anarchist extraordinaire Lysander Spooner, however, disagreed:

It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice.

In other words, let’s imagine a small business owner were given the choice between Candidate A who promises to tax small businesses into oblivion, and Candidate B, who promises to lower taxes. It hardly follows that the small business owner who casts a ballot in this case was supporting the whole system and apparatus that had put him in such an unenviable position to begin with.

Spooner continues:

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

…it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes [the voters], was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

In fact, when one adopts the position that voting indicates consent to the regime and all its acts, one is agreeing with the state’s apologists who repeatedly assert that, yes, voting means the voter acquiesces to the results of the election and the state overall.

They don’t stop there, though. Herbert Spencer notes that, in the minds of the voting-as-consent ideologues, not voting counts as consent too. As does voting against the victorious side in any election. Thus, it is claimed:

[T]he citizen is understood to have assented to everything his representative may do, when he voted for him.

But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views – what then?

The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority.

And how if he did not vote at all?

Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition.

So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted – whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter!

A rather awkward doctrine this.

Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent.

And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A’s consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!

The only alternative, we are told, is to move thousands of miles from friends, family, and property, learn a new culture (and probably a new language), and take up residence under a different regime..

To define consent in this manner, though, sets the bar of consent so low as to render it utterly meaningless.

“No” Doesn’t Mean “No” After All?

The horrors of such a definition can be plainly seen if applied to the case of women and sexual consent. By the logic of the sort of “consent” Spencer describes, we are forced to conclude: if a women says “yes,” she consents. If she says “no,” she also consents. If she can’t run away, then she’s still consenting.

One suspects that this would not be a terribly successful argument if employed by a rapist in a court of law.

And yet, here we are, being told that no matter what you do at election time, nothing — short of self-imposed exile —is to be interpreted as actual opposition to the state.

Expanding a “No” Vote for Candidates

To be fair, voting for candidates would appear to be harder to defend in this vein than voting against specific policies.

Voting “no” on a tax increase is fairly unambiguous, and can hardly by taken as support for any other policy. With candidates, however, there is far more room for state action. Even a candidate who might campaign on a tax cut will, after winning the election, take his election as a mandate to enact all sort of other objectionable laws that those who voted for him based on the tax issue would oppose.

Thus, voting “yes” for any candidate is inherently more dangerous than simply voting “no” on a tax increase.

For this reason, one might suggest that all ballots offer an “abstain” or “none of the above” option. Even if no further steps were taken — such as requiring a run-off in cases where “abstain” won the a majority — the option of voting against everyone could do wonders to illustrate the lack of legitimacy that political candidates truly have. This of course, is how we ought to interpret the vote of every eligible voter who prefers to not vote at all. Every non-vote is essentially a none-of-the-above vote, and many people choose to express their opposition to the candidates in this way.

That’s a perfectly acceptable course of action. But it’s not the only acceptable one.

About the author:
*Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is the editor of Mises Wire and The Austrian. Send him your article submissions, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute


New Players In A Dollarized World – Analysis

0
0

A multipolar currency landscape could emerge as other nations question the US dollar’s near-monopoly over global trade and reserves.

By Michał Romanowski*

The offensive US trade policy as well as economic sanctions Washington imposes on its adversaries have triggered a shift in the global currency landscape – and, as a result, steady recession from the dollar-denominated system.

Called “de-dollarization,” this phenomenon fits into the wider narrative of a multipolar world of which a monetary order would be an integral component. Countries like Russia and China, given their international heft – ranked as second and twelfth leading economies, respectively – lead this process. Others including Iran, Turkey and major European countries are not lagging far behind.

Transition from the US dollar-based environment is possible, but will be slow and the new reality will involve a competition from several pretenders for the status of the dominant currency.

The US dollar is king and has enjoyed such global status for decades. When Saudi Arabia and the United States reached a deal in the 1970s to trade oil and therefore other relevant goods, only in US dollars, the role of the greenback was cemented. Today, over 60 percent of the world’s foreign exchange reserves are held in US dollars, and the greenback accounts for 70 percent of global trade transactions. Consequently, when virtually the entire globe uses the dollar to settle payments this generates major demand for the currency itself. The status allows the US government to refinance its debt at low interest rates through bonds and securities.

Global trade is not the only factor. With the growing economic posture of China, India and others, the transparency of the US financial system and monetary policy also make the dollar a safe-haven in a time of uncertainty or crisis. In fact, the greenback appreciates disproportional profits considering the size of the US economy, which is slowly but surely giving place on the international scene to rising Asian actors.

Countries around the world pursue de-dollarization not only due to US sanctions and trade wars. The large share of the greenback in the economy adversely affects the efficiency of states’ monetary policy and reduces capacity to control macroeconomic processes. When governments, banks or citizens hold sizeable dollar-denominated assets and liabilities, this trend can lead to significant income losses when exchange rates fluctuate.

Lender snapshots: US debt has steadily risen in recent years; to influence dollar’s dominance, Russia needs China’s help (Source: US Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department)
Lender snapshots: US debt has steadily risen in recent years; to influence dollar’s dominance, Russia needs China’s help (Source: US Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department)  

Economists suggest that the challenges posed by high dollarization can be tackled only in a comprehensive manner. This requires not only ensuring price stability and exchange-rate flexibility, but also spurring a structural shift of the economy. Above all, trust in any national currency must be restored or instilled to produce positive results.

International Monetary Fund studies offer evidence that monetary and macro-prudential policies coupled with the introduction of inflation-targeting regime substantially de-dollarized emerging market economies in Latin America, Europe and Asia between 2000 and 2008. The trend has either stalled or partly reversed with the global economic crises, 2009 to 2011, but today returns in full force.

Russia, with more than its state budget relying on oil revenues, drives the de-dollarization train with President Vladimir Putin calling on the global dollar monopoly to end. Moscow hopes to enjoy the unlimited sovereignty and shield itself from US sanctions and external political pressure. Russian authorities are currently working on a de-dollarization plan that would stimulate payments in other currencies as well as transfer country’s major holdings to the Russian jurisdiction.

This year Moscow has already offloaded more than $80 billion in US government debt obligations, which equals 84 percent of its US securities. This exodus demonstrates that Russia is serious to move beyond political rhetoric and be a proactive player.

A changing basket: The International Monetary Fund reviews reserve currencies every five years and added the Chinese renminbi/yuan in 2015; criterion require that currencies are freely usable and widely traded (Source: IMF)
A changing basket: The International Monetary Fund reviews reserve currencies every five years and added the Chinese renminbi/yuan in 2015; criterion require that currencies are freely usable and widely traded (Source: IMF)   

As the largest exporter of gas and the second largest of oil in the world, Russia has the theoretic claim to challenge the petrodollar. However, it can achieve no satisfactory outcomes alone.

Enter China. Over the past years, Beijing has made significant progress in enhancing the yuan’s role in international trade and investment. The governor of China’s central bank criticized the globe’s dependence on the dollar in 2009, and almost a decade later, during the 2017 Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, President Xi Jinping said that the time has come for China to take center stage in the world. This includes not only promoting globalization and boosting foreign aid, but also internationalizing its currency.

Beijing is rather conservative about dumping shares of its $1.17 trillion holdings of US debt amid trade tensions with the United States. But leaders have already taken several essential steps to make the yuan a global currency. IMF awarded the yuan status as a reserve currency in 2015, adding it a year later to the Special Drawing Rights – a supplementary foreign-exchange reserve asset. In 2017 China overcame the United States to become the world’s largest importer of crude oil, and in March 2018, China launched first crude oil futures contracts priced in yuan – an open challenge to a petrodollar order.

Policymakers in Beijing have increasingly wondered why they should we pay for oil in dollars and not Chinese currency. This led to extending local currency swaps with various countries. China has already eliminated transactions denominated in US dollars from the bilateral trade with Iran and signed similar agreements with Canada and Qatar. But there are obstacles to China’s currency spread as well. The country’s capitals markets are underdeveloped and not fully accessible while yuan is not allowed to float freely as the government determines the rate. Also Beijing initiates its climb up the international currency ladder from a low point. SWIFT data indicate that the yuan accounts for approximately 2 percent of cross-border payments in comparison to a 40 percent share of dollar-denominated transactions.

Europe, for its part, watches these developments closely, but also takes action. In September 2018, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said that Europe should do more to promote the euro. He described as “absurd” the situation in which the European Union purchases 80 percent of its energy in dollars while the United States provides 2 percent of raw materials required by Europe. The European Central Bank recently exchanged €500 million worth of US dollar reserves into yuan securities. It reflects both China’s growing prominence in the global financial system as well as the state of transatlantic relations which have never been so strained. And when German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas calls for abandoning SWIFT, ending US dominance and establishing a new payments system independent of the United States one could almost expect tectonic changes in the global currency environment.

The de-dollarization process poses international economic ramifications. The greenback’s near-monopoly in the sphere of payments and reserves has been challenged and a more multipolar currency landscape is gradually being developed. However, political consequences of these processes may be far more profound. When Saudi Arabia decides to accept yuan for oil sold to China, the United States – already perceived as turning inward – will unintentionally make political room for Beijing in assuming a greater leadership role worldwide.

In the foreseeable future the dollar will remain the dominant source of trade and payments. Currency guru Barry Eichengreen suggests the currency could lose its high status within 10 years. He reminds that the 20th-century sterling-to-dollar switch on the global scale was rapid, and the yuan is an underdog that might surprise all.

*Michał Romanowski is a Eurasia expert with The German Marshall Fund of the United States in Warsaw.

Masquerading Reforms: The Tricks Of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman – OpEd

0
0

The surgical dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi has sent the military establishments of several countries into a tizz. Arms manufacturers are wondering whether this is an inconvenient blip, a ruffling moral reminder about what they are dealing with. Autocratic regimes indifferent to the lives of journalists are wondering whether the fuss taken about all this is merely the fuss endured, till the next bloody suppression. But importantly, those states notionally constituting the West may have to reconsider the duping strategy that the House of Saud has executed with the deft efficiency of the dedicated axeman.

The ranks are closing in around the Saudi royals, notably the purportedly suspicious son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose status has been given an undue measure of inflation from various powers happy to see reform in the air. The measures taken by MBS have been modest and hardly worth a sigh: the cutting of subsidies, permitting women to drive, and restructuring the economy. But like a fake article of purchase at an inordinately expensive auction, the prince’s counterfeit credentials are starting to peer through the canvas.

The Crown Prince has been happy to provide a train of examples to suggest to his Western audience that the roots of a liberal Saudi Arabian past are very much in evidence. To Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, the beguiling royal explained that, “Before 1979 there were societal guardianship customs, but no guardianship laws in Saudi Arabia.”

The tactic is clear: speak of a yesteryear that was jolly and a touch tender, and promise that a current era seemingly harder can emulate it. Goldberg was good enough to make the observation that the Crown Prince had gotten one thing right from the perspective of his sponsors in Europe, the Middle East and the United States: “He has made all the right enemies.”

In the aftermath of Khashoggi’s disappearance, Mohammed was keen to get a word in to the Trump administration before any firm conclusions could be drawn. His first port of call was President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and national security adviser John Bolton. According to The Washington Post, the call featured one theme of justification: Khashoggi was a dangerous, destabilising Islamist, and any tears shed would be premature.

Publically, the Crown Prince played along with the conceit that the death of Khashoggi had been “very painful for all Saudis”, being unjustifiable. Khalid bin Salman, Riyadh’s ambassador in Washington, insisted that the slain journalist had been a friend of the Kingdom, “dedicating 
a great portion of his life to serve his country.”

The powers, regional and beyond, have taken to douching the image of the Crown Prince, hoping to minimise prospects for any rash action. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu might well concede that was happened in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last month “was horrendous and should be duly dealt with”, but the broader strategic interests topped anything connected with a mere journalist’s life. When a figure corrupted by power reasons with violently inflicted death, he is bound to embrace that word that forgives and justifies all: stability. “At the same time, it is very important for the stability of the world, for the region and for the world, that Saudi Arabia remain stable.”

Minor appendages of US power such as Australia also find themselves in a tangle about how best to approach the revelations and claimed royal involvement. Shrouded in history, the officials of distant Canberra also remain gulled, confused, and happy to be led. The Australian defence sector has been placed in the dim light of deals with the Kingdom. As legal advocate Kellie Tanter notes, documents obtained via Freedom of Information laws confirm that, between January 1 2016 to December 31, 2017, sixteen military licenses were procured for export of military equipment from Australia to Saudi Arabia. As is traditional with such freedom of information laws, permit holders, permit numbers and approved goods, consignees, end-users and approved destinations were redacted.

Under questioning from Labor Senator Alex Gallacher last month in a Senate estimates hearing, the Australian Department of Defence was not forthcoming about the nature of the exports to Riyadh. Official Tom Hamilton refused to disclose their value, citing weak “commercial-in-confidence” reasons.

The pickle Australian policy makers find themselves in lies in the obligations of the Arms Trade Treaty, which insists on a ban on exports of weapons to countries where evidence can be shown of use against civilians. The Saudi-led campaign in Yemen against the Houthis, featuring a true orgy of civilian-targeted destruction, qualifies. But Yemen hardly qualifies as a humanitarian disaster in Australian political discourse (distant places have a certain ethical irrelevance to the plodders in Canberra). To make sure her bases are covered, Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, in reference not to the war in Yemen but the killing of Khashoggi, suggested that, “All options are on the table”. It is already clear what option Canberra prefers: ignore the complicity of the House of Saud, and keep the procession of defence contracts going.

Khashoggi himself was clear enough about the nature of the Crown Prince: the royal was entirely self-centred, and any reform would take place in a contrived way. Concepts of reform within the Saudi royal court can, at best, only be a limited affair, and have nothing to do with deeper social considerations. Saudi intellectuals, activists and journalists languished in prison even as MBS was being praised for his openness; such projects as the futuristic city of Neom were doomed examples of extravagance rather than forward thinking.

“He has no interest in political reform,” comes Khashoggi, a voice from the grave. “He thinks he can do it alone, and he doesn’t want really any counter opinion or anyone to share those changes in Saudi Arabia with him.” Hardly revelatory, and something bound to do little to turn the ladies and men of the security establishments of the West.

Iran Nuclear Deal Was Meant To Give US Face-Saving In Syria – OpEd

0
0

Recently, the Trump administration has announced the most stringent set of sanctions against Iran to appease Benjamin Netanyahu. Donald Trump has repeatedly said during the last two years that the Iran nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015 was an “unfair deal” that gave concessions to Iran without giving anything in return to the US.

Unfortunately, there is a grain of truth in Trump’s statements because the Obama administration had signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in July 2015 under pressure as Washington had bungled in its Middle East policy and it wanted Iran’s cooperation in Syria and Iraq to get a face-saving.

In order to understand how the Obama administration bungled in Syria and Iraq, we should bear the background of Washington’s Middle East policy during the recent years in mind. The seven-year-long conflict in Syria, that gave birth to scores of militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014, was directly responsible for the spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional Sunni allies and jihadists of the Middle East against the Shi’a Iranian axis. In accordance with the pact, militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Syrian government.

This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the jihadists of the Middle East against the Iranian axis worked well up to August 2014, when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of Sunni militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian government in September 2015, the momentum of jihadists’ expansion in Syria and Iraq stalled, and they felt that their Western patrons had committed a treachery against the Sunni jihadists’ cause, that’s why they were infuriated and rose up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.

If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the spate of terror attacks against the West was critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting air strikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism occurred on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, and then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the June 2016 truck-ramming incident in Nice, and three horrific terror attacks took place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months in 2017, and after that the Islamic State carried out the Barcelona attack in August 2017, and then another truck-ramming atrocity occurred in Lower Manhattan in October 2017 that was also claimed by the Islamic State.

More to the point, the dilemma that the jihadists and their regional backers faced in Syria was quite unique: in the wake of the Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013, the stage was all set for yet another no-fly zone and “humanitarian intervention” a la Qaddafi’s Libya; the war hounds were waiting for a finishing blow and then-Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and then-Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan, were shuttling between the Western capitals to lobby for the military intervention. Francois Hollande had already announced his intentions and David Cameron was also onboard.

Here it should be remembered that even during the Libyan intervention, the Obama administration’s policy was a bit ambivalent and France under the leadership of Sarkozy had taken the lead role. In Syria’s case, however, the British parliament forced Cameron to seek a vote for military intervention in the House of Commons before committing the British troops and air force to Syria.

Taking cue from the British parliament, the US Congress also compelled Obama to seek approval before another ill-conceived military intervention; and since both the administrations lacked the requisite majority in their respective parliaments and the public opinion was also fiercely against another Middle Eastern war, therefore Obama and Cameron dropped their plans of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.

In the end, France was left alone as the only Western power still in favor of intervention; at that point, however, the seasoned Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, staged a diplomatic coup by announcing that the Syrian regime was willing to ship its chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria and subsequently the issue was amicably resolved.

Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states, the main beneficiaries of the Sunni Jihad against the Shi’a-dominated government in Syria, however, had lost a golden opportunity to deal a fatal blow to their regional rivals.

To add insult to the injury, the Islamic State, one of the numerous Sunni Arab militant outfits fighting in Syria, overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in 2014, from where the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011, as I have already described.

Additionally, when the graphic images and videos of Islamic State’s executions surfaced on the internet, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to adopt some countermeasures to show that it was still sincere in pursuing its dubious “war on terror” policy; at the same time, however, it assured its Turkish, Jordanian and Gulf Arab allies that despite fighting a war against the maverick jihadist outfit, the Islamic State, the Western policy of training and arming the so-called “moderate” Syrian militants will continue apace and that Bashar al-Assad’s days were numbered, one way or the other.

Moreover, declaring the war against the Islamic State in August 2014 served another purpose too: in order to commit the US Air Force to Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration needed the approval of the US Congress which was not available, as I have already mentioned, but by declaring a war against the Islamic State, which is a designated terrorist organization, the Obama administration availed itself of the war on terror provisions in the US laws and thus circumvented the US Congress.

But then Russia threw a spanner in the works of NATO and its Gulf Arab allies in September 2015 by its surreptitious military buildup in Latakia that was executed with an element of surprise unheard of since General Rommel, the Desert Fox. And now Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf Arab states and their jihadist proxies in Syria find themselves at the receiving end in the Syrian conflict.

Keeping this background of the quagmire created by the Obama administration in Syria and Iraq to please Washington’s regional allies, Israel and the Gulf states, in mind, it becomes amply clear that the Obama administration desperately needed Iran’s cooperation in Syria and Iraq to salvage its failed policy of training and arming jihadists to topple the government in Syria that backfired and gave birth to the Islamic State that carried out some of the most audacious terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Thus, Washington signed JCPOA in July 2015 that gave some concessions to Iran, and in return the then hardliner Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki was forced out of power in September 2014 and the moderate Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was appointed in his stead who gave permission to the US Air Force and ground troops to assist Iraq’s Armed Forces and allied militias to beat back the Islamic State from Mosul and Anbar.

The Trump administration, however, is not hampered by the legacy of Obama administration and since the objective of defeating the Islamic State has already been comprehensively achieved, therefore Washington felt safe to annul the Iran nuclear deal in May and the crippling “third-party sanctions” have once again been put in place on Iran at Benjamin Netanyahu’s behest. In realpolitik, one cannot negotiate from a position of weakness, one can simply capitulate; because justice prevails among equals.

Anarchy In Yemen Must End To Pave Way For Humanitarian Justice – OpEd

0
0

Yemen has been witnessing divisions, turbulence and poverty for long. The most prominent has been the North-South division of the country which is not merely geographical but is characterized by differing socio-economic and political expectations and roles. Although the formal division was addressed through a political union in 1990, the inhabitants of southern part have long accused the northerners of discrimination and unfair control over resources and sought separation from the north regardless of the unification. However, it was believed that certain regional powers such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were allegedly involved in training and strengthening security forces in the southern part and emboldened them to demand for independence for their geopolitical ambitions – trade routes through the port of Aden to the rest of the world.

External actors have historically influenced the internal political developments within Yemen. For long, the northern part came under the rule of monarch and the southern part was ruled by the British unleashing violence for years between the Saudi-backed remnants of the monarchy and the Egyptian-backed republicans until unification in 1990. The desire for independence among southerners pushed the country into a civil war in 1994 closely on the heels of the political union.

However, the union was restored and sustained by a military victory of the north over the south and Ali Abed Allah Saleh who became the first President after the country’s unification could sustain his rule until 2011. Saleh was allegedly shrewd enough to manipulate the country’s tribal system to avert rebellion against his long-years of corrupt rule. Instead of working on the internal weaknesses of the Yemeni economy, Saleh relied more on external aid to run his rule. However, the aid was rarely used to improve the conditions of masses For instance, by allowing American drone aircrafts to kill alleged al-Qaeda targets on Yemeni soil, the leader reportedly received around tens of millions of dollars in American aid. On the other side, the UN Security Council found after his removal that he had amassed between $32bn and $60bn through corruption during his 33 years in power.

The country further plunged into turbulence when many democratic protesters of the country imbued by the larger democratic movement which swept across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011 known as Arab Spring launched months-long campaign aimed at ending the undemocratic and corrupt rule of Saleh. However, the ruler’s aspiration to cling to power and protesters’ resolve to dislodge him resulted in military clashes between the government forces and tribal militias and contributed to the country’s anarchic conditions. Then Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, replaced Saleh first through an internationally-brokered deal and later was elected as President in February, 2012 amid violence in the southern part of the country (he was in fact the only candidate to have contested for the Presidential post for a two-year transitional period). While initially the 2014 presidential elections were postponed until 2015, the country’s degeneration into a civil war has precluded such possibility till now. The beginning of the ongoing civil war in the country can be traced to September 2014 when the Houthis, a group of Shia rebels of the north not only took over the capital city of Sanaa but forced the internationally recognized government of Hadi to go on an exile in Saudi Arabia.

The unaddressed demands of the southern people kept the country’s unity and leadership weak and contributed the exponential rise of rebels in the north such as the Houthis who not only shared a sense of economic and political injustice, many view in their rise an ambition to revive Imam’s rule. The Houthis are part of the Shia Zaidi, a branch of the Shia Imamiya of Iran who ruled Yemen for more than one thousand years until 1962. The group took advantage of the prevailing disorder arising out of the grievances of the southern people. It is noteworthy that the Southern Transitional Council (STC) – the south’s de facto government had called for protests against President Hadi and demanded the resignation of the prime minister blaming his government for high-level corruption and misuse of state funds.

Long-years of civil wars, corrupt rule, failure of the leaders of the north to share a sense of justice and equitability among the people of the south and growing disaffection with the government’s policies and power struggle in the north have largely been responsible to send the country into an abyss. These internal dynamics of the civil war have come in contact with external factors in the form of jostle for influence among regional powers and added more complexity to the civil war.

The Houthis allied with Yemen’s ousted dictator Saleh to remove Hadi from power notwithstanding the fact that Saleh’s long years of undemocratic and corrupt regime contributed to the rise of many disgruntled groups in Yemen including the Houthis. The Houthis and the Yemeni government had been in confrontations since 2004 although much of the fighting was confined to the Houthis’ stronghold, the Saada province. Since 2015, the group has not only been able to extend its sway around much of the country’s south, they have also asserted their control over many provinces in the north as well.

Saudi Arabia which not only shares a border with Yemen but was witnessed exerting influence over the political developments in the country historically, formed a coalition of Arab states including Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan and Senegal in its attempts to roll back the territorial gains made by the Houthis and extend its own influence. This time, Yemen has become a site for competition for influence between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy in the Middle East just as Syria became another site for the geopolitical rivalry between the two powers. Saudi Arabia and its supporters have been accusing Iran of arming the Houthi rebels although Tehran has denied such charges.

The US, UK and France although have not been directly involved in the conflict as warring parties, they have been supplying the Saudi-led coalition with weapons and the US President Donald Trump under his presidency resumed the $500m defence sale to Saudi Arabia which was cancelled by the previous Administration due to concerns over civilian casualties. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has recently remarked: “Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen”.

Previously, the US defence secretary James Mattis assured the American support for the Saudi-led coalition even while he maintained at the same time that America’s goal was to keep “human cost at an absolute minimum”. Amid Saudi Arabia’s allegedly controversial role in the widely publicized killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, there has been increasing moral pressures on the arms supplying countries to discontinue such supplies and push for resolution of the conflict. However, there is still much ambiguity whether moral imperatives can outweigh geopolitics and economic gains. President Trump’s remarks on Saudi Arabia’s defence purchase amid Khashoggi controversy are pertinent in this context: “If they don’t buy it from us, they’re going to buy it from Russia or they’re going to buy it from China… Think of that, $110 billion. All they’re going to do is give it to other countries, and I think that would be very foolish”.

So long as the parties to the conflict believe that the outcome of the war can be determined by military means and bring geopolitical gains, there would be lesser incentives for political resolution of the conflict. The powerful countries would do well in throwing their weight behind the UN effort to broker peace talks between allied Houthi rebels and the government notwithstanding the fact that such effort of the UN could not yield results in the summer of 2016.

While civil war in Yemen has been a continuous phenomenon, this time it has pushed the country into a humanitarian catastrophe. As an indicator of poverty, the country’s ranking in the Human Development Index based on yardsticks such as life expectancy, education and standard of living in 2015 (during beginning of the civil war) is revealing which placed Yemen at 168th position out of a total of 188 countries. Humanitarian conditions have worsened further as the civil war escalated. According to the UN’s recent estimates the civil war conditions in Yemen have pushed more than 22 million out of total population of 29 million to dire need of humanitarian assistance and around 18 million of people are not sure of their next meal. Mark Lowcock, the UN’s humanitarian chief has remarked that already, more than 8 million people are “facing pre-famine conditions, meaning they are entirely reliant on external aid for survival”.

Escalation of war has not only pushed more than 3 million Yemenis out of their homes, many have sought refuge in other countries as well. The continuing war has already taken a huge toll on children as around 50,000 children died tragically in a single year- 2017. Even while most of international relief aid has been supplied by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the Saudi-led coalition has resorted to air, land and sea blockade to roll back the influence of the Houthis which has been blocking supplies of essential commodities such as food, medicine and fuel to the needy masses.

This has in turn generated conditions of famine in the country whose food imports are as high as around 80 percent. Further, as per the estimates of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, air strikes carried out by the Saudi-led coalition have been largely responsible for majority of the reported civilian deaths as the figures ascribed around two-thirds of the reported cases of civilian deaths to the coalition. At the beginning of 2017, the death toll crossed 10,000, with at least 40,000 wounded. The Houthis have also allegedly taken a huge toll on civilians with their siege of the city of Taiz and were also allegedly involved in carrying out a missile attack on a Turkish ship delivering wheat.

The intervening powers need to take a major responsibility in bringing a political breakthrough to the Yemeni crisis. The external powers, for long, strengthened the Yemeni leaders both in economic and military terms without ensuring whether the assistance benefited people and addressed the historical grievances and now they are supplying arms to the war without caring much about its impacts on civilians. It is high time that they corrected the past mistakes.

Warming Oceans Lead To More Fur Seal Deaths From Hookworm Infection

0
0

Rising ocean temperatures are putting fur seal pups at greater risk of death from hookworm infections, according to new findings published in eLife.

The results shed new light on how warmer oceans can alter specific physiological processes in marine mammals, and suggest that infectious diseases could cause higher mortality rates if temperatures keep rising.

“Increasing ocean temperatures are associated with changes in the patterns of wind and ocean currents, which cause a decrease in the cycling of nutrients and, by extension, the abundance of life including fishes,” said first author Mauricio Seguel, Postdoctoral Associate in the Odum School of Ecology at the University of Georgia, Athens, US.

“Reductions in marine life have also been linked with the decline of marine mammal populations, as they rely on fish as their main food supply. Fur seals and sea lions may be included here, because although their pups live on land, they depend on their mother’s’ milk for survival, which can only be produced if the mothers eat enough fish.”

To investigate how marine mammals may be affected by changes in ocean conditions, Seguel and his team studied the health and survival of a colony of fur seals in South America between 2004-2008 and 2012-2017. “As hookworm infection is a major cause of death in this group of animals, whereby the parasite gets into the intestine of seal pups and sucks their blood, we wanted to see if environmental change affects the pups’ ability to respond to this parasite,” Seguel explains.

They found that, in years with colder ocean temperatures, such as 2007, fur seal pups receive more maternal care and consequently have a more effective immune system. This allows approximately 70% of them to eliminate the parasite from the intestine via a specific immune response that includes producing antibodies that kill it.

On the other hand, in years with warmer ocean conditions, such as 2017, their mothers have to spend more time in the ocean to find fish, which means spending less time with their pups. These pups grow more slowly, have lower levels of blood glucose and are unable to fight off hookworms, with approximately half of them dying from the infection.

“Our work reveals how changing ocean conditions are having an indirect effect on fur seal pups’ mortality rates as a result of infection,” Seguel concluded. “We hope these findings help lay the groundwork for investigating ways to limit the effect of parasitic diseases among fur seals and other marine mammals in the context of a changing climate.”

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images