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

Empowered, Emboldened House Democrats Chart Path Forward

0
0

By Michael Bowman

Washington is adjusting to an impending power shift after Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Democrats are promising to hold President Donald Trump accountable and protect the Justice Department’s Russia probe, but are also stressing the need to deliver tangible results that address the American people’s everyday concerns.

The power shift will come in January, when House Democrats will have the majority they need to investigate the Trump administration. But Democrats slated to lead key committees, like Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) of the House Oversight Committee, are promising judicious use of that power.

“I am not going to be handing out subpoenas like somebody handing our candy on Halloween.… We have got a lot to do, so I am laser-focused, laser-focused on those issues that even President Trump says he wants to work on, such as prescription drug prices,” said Cummings, speaking on ABC’s This Week program.

Even so, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) of the House Judiciary Committee says more congressional scrutiny of the Trump administration is on the way.

“We will hold the president accountable. He will learn that he is accountable, that he is not above the law,” said Nadler, also speaking on ABC’s This Week.

Trump says he is not worried about what House Democrats will do.

“They can look at us, we can look at them. And it will go back and forth. All of this is a warlike posture,” the president said.

Protection of Russia probe

Democrats are blasting Trump’s pick to lead the Justice Department after the president’s firing of attorney general Jeff Sessions last week. Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has repeatedly criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election meddling and possible collusion by Trump’s inner circle.

Nadler says that Whitaker’s appointment “is simply part of an attack on the investigation by Robert Mueller, the special counsel. It is part of a pattern of interference by the president.”

Senate Democrats and a few Republicans are renewing a push for legislation to make it harder for the White House to dismiss Mueller, insisting the probe must be completed. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) says the effort requires a bipartisan push.

“Now more than ever, a functioning democracy requires Democrats and Republicans to come together, to take action next week to protect special counsel Mueller’s investigation. Because if we do not and Donald Trump is given license to shut down an investigation into his own potential wrongdoing, then our nation starts to devolve into a banana republic,” Murphy said.

The Senate’s top Republican, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) says Trump is no threat to Mueller’s work.

“There has never been any indication that he (Trump) wants to dismiss Mueller or the investigation,” McConnell said.

The White House, meanwhile, flatly denies that any collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice took place. Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, says the White House has been cooperating with the probe.

“We have already been very compliant with the Mueller investigation – 1.4 million pieces of paper produced, 33 and counting individuals who have been interviewed or asked to produce information,” said Conway, who also spoke on ABC’s This Week.

Progressive activists are pressing for impeachment of Trump. But top House Democrats insist such talk is premature and that any steps to sanction the president must be carefully weighed and supported by concrete evidence.


Macedonia: Police Issue Arrest Warrant For Former PM Gruevski

0
0

(RFE/RL) — Macedonian police have issued an arrest warrant for former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, who has been convicted and sentenced to a two-year prison term on corruption-related charges.

Interior Ministry spokesman Toni Angelovski said the warrant for Gruevski’s arrest was issued November 12 following court instructions.

Judges on November 9 rejected Gruevski’s final appeal against his serving the sentence.

The former leader of the conservative main opposition party VMRO-DPMNE was sentenced in May to two years in prison for unlawfully influencing Interior Ministry officials over the purchase of a luxury vehicle at an estimated cost of 600,000 euros ($674,500).

Court clerks have tried in vain to locate Gruevski and personally serve him the order to present himself at the prison.

Gruevski, 48, was prime minister from 2006-2016. He is the former leader of the main opposition conservative VMRO-DPMNE party, which claims he is being politically persecuted.

He is still facing three other corruption trials, including over a major wiretapping scandal, and could be handed longer sentences than the one already given to him.

Hillary Clinton Mulls Entering 2020 US Presidential Elections Race

0
0

Former US first lady Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 race for the White House to Republican Donald Trump, is once again considering running for president in 2020, says a former adviser to the Clinton family.

Mike Penn, who is also a frequent contributor to Democrat-leaning newspaper The Hill, wrote in a Sunday op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that the former Democratic presidential nominee doesn’t want to end her political career with a “humiliating loss” to President Trump.

“True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies,” read the article, co-written by Andrew Stein, a Democrat who served on the New York City Council. “She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”

Penn said Clinton during the 2016 presidential election end her political career.

“You can expect her to run for president once again,” the pair predicted. “Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”

Clinton has two years to review what went wrong during her last campaign bid, which fell apart despite her being viewed as the favorite in almost all polls, Penn said.

The article said Clinton needed a strategy to win over voters who surprisingly supported her rival in 2016.

“She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her,” the article read. “They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat—the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump.”

Clinton, who served as former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state after losing to him in the 2008 primaries, left the door open to a possible 2020 run, saying last month that “I’d like to be president.”

Despite all this, however, Clinton’s longtime advisers and confidants have denied that she was weighing another White House bid.

“She’s more likely to win Powerball,” Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime adviser, told The Hill.

Penn and Stein, however, said that voters should not pay attention to Clinton’s “‘I won’t run’ declarations.”

“Mrs. Clinton knows both Mr. [former President Bill] Clinton and Mr. Obama declared they weren’t running, until they ran,” the pair argued. “She may even skip Iowa and enter the race later, but rest assured that, one way or another, Hillary 4.0 is on the way.”

Original source

Serbian Gangsters’ Deadly South African Connection – Analysis

0
0

When four Serbian criminals with South African links were murdered in interlinked shootings, media speculated it was revenge for the killing of wartime paramilitary boss Arkan, but the murders actually showed how violence follows Serbian gangsters wherever they go.

By Aleksandar Djuricic

Dobrosav Gavric is spending his days behind bars in South Africa, a long way from his homeland, awaiting a final decision on whether he will be sent back to Serbia to serve a prison sentence for killing the most notorious paramilitary leader of the 1990s wars – Zeljko Raznatovic, alias Arkan.

Gavric was convicted of murdering warlord Arkan in 2000 in Belgrade, but fled to South Africa to avoid serving his sentence. He is now facing extradition after South Africa’s Constitutional Court decided in late September that he could be sent back to Serbia, where he had argued that his life would be in danger.

He was caught after being wounded in a drive-by shooting in 2011, but despite his predicament, Gavric might consider himself lucky – several other Serbs who were convicted of involvement in the killing of Arkan or had relocated to South Africa to pursue their criminal activities have been murdered this year. Three were shot in South Africa, and another in Belgrade.

Some of the victims had fled Serbia to avoid going to prison, but the country in which they hoped to enjoy refuge from the law became the place where they met their violent deaths. Only Gavric survived, but now a Serbian jail seemingly awaits him – showing how Serbian gangsters’ dreams of operating freely abroad can deliver the same fate that they sought to escape at home.

Criminal fugitive finds African haven

On October 9, 2006, a court in the Serbian capital sentenced Gavric to 35 years in prison for shooting Arkan in the lobby of Belgrade’s Intercontinental Hotel. Two accomplices were given 30 years each.

Arkan had been the leader of the Serbian Volunteer Guard, also known as the Tigers, one of the most feared Serb paramilitary units of the Balkan wars, and had been indicted the previous year by the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, which accused him of committing war crimes in north-west Bosnia in 1995.

During the trial, it was not established who ordered and organised his murder. Some believe that Arkan was shot as a result of a conflict over money with a gangster called Zoran Uskokovic ‘Skole’. Others believe that he was killed because he had begun to collaborate with the UN prosecutors in The Hague.

Court proceedings were restarted several times, but all the while Gavric regularly attended the proceedings – until the day of sentencing came, when he didn’t show up.

Gavric had fled Serbia, and was not heard of again until almost five years later, when it was discovered that he was living in South Africa. By that time, he working as a driver and bodyguard for a Cape Town underworld boss, Cyril Beeka, it eventually emerged when the South African gangster was shot dead in March 2011.

Mandy Wiener, a South African investigative journalist, told BIRN that after the murder of Beeka, local media reported that he had been accompanied at the time of his death by a bodyguard called Sase Kovacevic, a Serbian who had been in South Africa for a few years and was fairly well-known in Johannesburg poker circles.

Kovacevic co-owned a few businesses in the city, according to Wiener, and had also got to know a crime boss of Czech origin, Radovan Krejcir, and his circle of Eastern European associates.

“The incredible truth about Kovacevic’s real identity only emerged after the shooting [of Beeka], although South African police had been aware of it for around six months,” Wiener recalled in her book ‘Ministry of Crime’.

“Kovacevic was, in fact, Dobrosav Gavric, a Serbian fugitive.”

After Beeka’s killing, Gavric was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of 9.524 grammes of cocaine and with having false documents – a driver’s licence, a passport and a firearms permit under the name of Sasa Kovacevic.

It turned out that Gavric had obtained a passport from Bosnia and Herzegovina under the name of Sasa Kovacevic and fled Serbia via Croatia, Italy and Cuba to Ecuador. In 2007, he travelled to South Africa, where he kept using the alias of Kovacevic.

He came on a three-month visitor’s visa, then brought in his wife and two children, and bought a luxurious apartment overlooking the Cape Town waterfront.

He obtained a business visa under his wife’s name, which enabled him to open a restaurant in Johannesburg. He was also able to set up an import-export business and began to establish relationships with local crime boss Beeka and his network.

“So it was that for over three years, a highly sought-after international fugitive was living under an alias in South Africa with no one any the wiser. He was even able to secure business, driving and gun licences by using his fake passport. But towards the end of 2010, his identity did become known to intelligence agents and some suggest he might even have been working with the state to provide information,” Wiener wrote in her book.

A source close to Beeka told the Mail and Guardian newspaper: “Gavric came to South Africa’s underground and when he got here he was offered protection by Cyril Beeka in return for intelligence on Eastern Europe, gangs, drugs, etc. The deal was that he would get protection about his identity from ‘the [South African state] agencies’ and in return he promised them information on all the organisations from Eastern Europe and Serbia.”

On the day of the murder, Beeka was chatting to Gavric, reminiscing about his youth, when gunmen opened fire as they stopped at a traffic light.

“I was the driver and Cyril was seated in the front passenger seat. I saw something stop, but it was out of the corner of my eye,” Gavric said in a statement to police after the shooting.

“The next thing I recall was hearing two loud bangs going off. I was hit in my right arm as well as my left one and I noticed that Cyril had been hit in the chest. It sounded like a shotgun went off. There was smoke and glass and I was confused,” he added.

Gavric fought back, opening fire on the assailants, Wiener wrote in her book. He slammed the car into reverse, then pursued the motorbike, firing several shots at the hitmen, despite having taken a number of bullets to his own body.

“The next thing I recall was my motor vehicle lifting from the ground and I lost control,” he said in the police statement. Beeka died at the scene and Gavric was airlifted to hospital in a critical condition.

Gavric’s present whereabouts are unknown. Some sources told BIRN that he has been in custody at Goodwood Correctional Facility near Cape Town since December 2011, while others said that he is being kept hidden under a state protection programme.

Beeka’s murderer was never caught, but Wiener said she thought Gavric was probably not a target in South Africa: “I don’t know if anyone is after Gavric here. Maybe from Serbia but I don’t think from the South African side. Unless he saw who killed Cyril Beeka when he was driving the car and he could testify against them.”

Serbian gangsters ‘feared and respected’

The two men convicted in 2006 as accomplices to Arkan’s murder were Milan ‘Miki’ Djuricic and Dragan ‘Gagi’ Nikolic.

Djuricic also went on the run and there was no information about his whereabouts for many years after he fled Serbia – until April 25, 2018, when he was murdered in Johannesburg in South Africa.

He was driving a jeep when three men attacked and killed him. He had a fake Belgian passport at the time.

A BIRN source in South Africa said that Djuricic had been living in Johannesburg for the previous three years and had a small business involving hotels, but that he was mostly involved in human trafficking and the drug trade. The source said that he was a “small fish” compared to Gavric.

Mile Novakovic, the former chief of Serbia’s Criminal Police Administration, said that both Djuricic and Gavric did not have a major role in criminal circles in the Balkans. He believes that their lowly status was why they were chosen to assassinate Arkan. “No one from high criminal circles would dare to take part in the execution of the number one state criminal,” Novakovic said.

But foreign criminals like Gavric are regarded as useful resources by local gangs, said South African security expert Mark Bolhuis.

“If you are an established mafia guy, especially if you are a Serb, you are automatically feared and respected in the underworld. There is information that you can be very dangerous, or very useful, or you can be a hitman or be part of a mafia organisation,” Bolhuis told BIRN.

“Once a gangster from overseas comes over they are accepted amongst gangs with open arms. Local gangs believe they can learn a lot from them and get lots of money. And then they hire them for different jobs – especially murders,” he added.

Bolhuis said that Serbian gangsters made contacts with local crime chiefs like Gavric’s employer, Cyril Beeka, and Radovan Krejcic, the underworld boss who originally came from the Czech Republic.

Krejcic is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence in South Africa after being found guilty of attempted murder, assault and kidnapping, amongst other things.

“In Africa, there was no bigger gangster than Krejcir,” Bolhuis said. “Many people got hurt by him and because of him. He did not work alone, of course, but he brought in people from abroad who were trained to kill. He had great ties to all the police chiefs, customs, municipality, government officials. But primarily with police chiefs.”

However Vojislav Tufegdzic, the author of ‘See You in the Obituaries’, a well-known book and documentary about the underworld in what was Yugoslavia during the 1990s, believes that media outlets in Serbia can be prone to exaggerating the importance of Serbian criminals abroad.

“Gavric was wounded in South Africa once again as a driver or bodyguard to a South African major criminal, certainly not as a person who had any bigger role on his own than in this country,” Tufegdzic said.

Death of an ‘information whore’

The third Serbian with South African connections who was killed this year was George Darmanovic, a South African state security agent and mafia mediator.

He was shot outside a court in the New Belgrade district of the Serbian capital by two men on a motorcycle in May, less than two weeks after Djuricic was killed.

Darmanovic was well-connected all the way to the top in South Africa, and played a crucial role that crossed over between official intelligence structures and people in the criminal underworld, said Wiener.

“He obviously had his own motives and his own political agendas but he was very successful at working both sides and passing intelligence from organised crime to the state and back again,” she claimed.

Bolhuis said this could have been the reason for his demise: “Darmanovic had a target pinned to his back for the last three years because he was a man with a very bad reputation,” the security expert explained.

“We use the term ‘information whore’ for such people. He sold information to anyone he could – whether the authorities, the police, one gang, the other gang, within the gang,” he added.

Bolhuis explained that Darmanovic worked by collecting information for whoever hired him, but at the same time he delivered information to the other side as well, and then also sold that information to the police.

Wiener said that Darmanovic always seemed to have the inside scoop on anything that happened in South Africa and lots of people spoke to him, from Crime Intelligence officers to private investigators. He was a nodal figure who peddled information, although it wasn’t always accurate, sources in South Africa said.

Darmanovic had been living in Serbia for the last four years before his death but he always had his finger on the pulse in South Africa, according to Wiener. “He was often the first one to let me know about a local development. Recently I had been receiving a flurry of messages for him in response to info that had come out in the Ministry of Crime. He knew everything about everything but often I struggled to make sense of all he had to say and there wasn’t always clarity.”

She said that she did not expect that Darmanovic to be killed, however.

“I wasn’t aware of any kind of hit that had been ordered on him here and I think a lot of people were very surprised,” she said.

“There is a lot of talk here in South Africa about who could be responsible and could it be linked to turf wars in the security industry in Cape Town. But to be honest I think it must have something to do with his business in Serbia. I don’t believe someone in South Africa would have been able to carry out the hit in Serbia,” she added.

The elusive Arkan connection

On July 17 this year came a third killing of a Serbian expatriate criminal in South Africa, Darko Kulic, who died in a drive-by shooting in Johannesburg. South African media have reported that it appears that the three victims were acquainted.

A source from the South African police told BIRN that they are “investigating whether the murders of Miki Djuricic, Gorgi George Darmanovic and Darko Kulic are connected to each other”.

Then on September 24, a fourth man was killed. Djordje ‘George’ Mihaljevic, a well-known businessman of Serbian/Montenegrin origin with ties to the Serbian underworld in South Africa, was shot dead in Johannesburg by two men on motorbikes. Mihaljevic was apparently best friends with the murdered Kulic, and also knew Darmanovic.

Serbian media have suggested the spate of murders was belated revenge for the killing of warlord Arkan in 2000, but South African experts believe that the criminals who fled Serbia died because they came into conflict with local gangsters after setting themselves up in business in their adopted country.

Mile Novakovic, former chief of Serbia’s Criminal Police Administration, said he thinks that the murders of Djuricic and Kulic in Johannesburg and Darmanovic in Belgrade had nothing to do with Arkan’s death.

“It’s been 18 years since Arkan’s murder and there is no one who would now care to avenge the ‘Commander’, as they called him. The murder of Djuricic in Johannesburg was a local showdown,” Novakovic insisted.

Tufegdzic also said he was sure that the murders were not revenge for Arkan’s death. “These fairy-tale theories are without merit,” he declared.

Bolhuis said that the Serbian gangsters came to South Africa because it is a “lucrative country for crime”, with “corrupt police and other officials” – but sometimes find that their safe haven from the judiciary at home can be more dangerous than a Serbian prison sentence.

“I expect more people will get hurt. There is no fairness or honour among criminals. At one point they will go for one another,” the South African security expert said. “If anyone touches their money, their families or disrespects them, they will make sure that these persons are punished, usually with a murder, in order to intimidate people who are cooperating.”

“Among criminals, there is no honour,” he added. “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.”

India: Targeting Polls In Chhattisgarh – Analysis

0
0

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On November 11, 2018, a Border Security Force (BSF) Sub-Inspector was killed in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) triggered by Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadres near the Koliyabeda area in Kanker District. Another BSF trooper was injured in the explosion. Police disclosed that the Maoists triggered another five IED blasts at separate locations in the areas between Kattakal and Gome villages in the District, though there were no casualties. These incidents took place a day ahead of the scheduled polling in the region.

The first phase of the two-phase State Assembly Elections is being held on November 12 [at the time of writing] while the second phase is scheduled to be held on November 20, 2018. Polling in 18 constituencies in eight Districts–Bastar, Kanker, Sukma, Bijapur, Dantewada, Narayanpur, Kondagaon and Rajnandgaon–is being held in the first phase [these are the eight districts in Chhattisgarh which have been listed among the 30 worst Naxal(Left Wing extremism, LWE)-affected Districts across the country.] The remaining 72 constituencies will go to the polls on November 20. Counting of votes will be held on December 11.

On November 8, 2018, at least four civilians and a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Head Constablewere killed when cadres of the CPI-Maoist triggered an IED targeting a bus carrying CISF personnel in a hilly area in Bacheli in Dantewada District.The dead civilians included the bus driver, two helpers, and a truck driver who had taken lift in the bus. Two CISF troopers were also injured in the incident. The explosion took place when the CISF personnel were returning to their camp in Akashnagar after purchasing groceries from a nearby market. The CISF unit was deployed in the area for the first phase of the polls in the State.

On November 7, 2018, the husband of asarpanch (head of the Panchayat, village level local self-government institution) was killed by CPI-Maoist cadres in Sukma District. KalmuDhruva was brutally beaten to death with sticks. Sukma, Superintendent of Police (SP) Abhishek Meena disclosed that Dhruva, the victim, was a worker of the Communist Party of India (CPI), while his wife is thesarpanch of Bodko village.

On October 30, 2018, four persons, including a Doordarshan(national Television)camera man andthreeCentral Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel,were killed whenCPI-Maoist cadres attacked the crew members of Doordarshannear Nilawaya village under Aranapur Police Station limitsin Dantewada District. According to reports, aDoordarshanteam gone to Dantewada for coverage of election related developments.

In a separate incident on the same day, a 65-year-old villager was killed when a pressure bomb, suspected to have been planted by the Maoists, went off near Nawadih village under Samri Police Station limits in BalrampurDistrict.Road construction work is reportedly under way in Samri.

On October 28, 2018, a local Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader was critically injured after he was attacked by half a dozen suspected CPI-Maoist cadres with sharp edged weapons in Dantewada District. Nandlal Mudami is a Zilla Parishad (District Council) member. Dantewada SP Abhishek Pallav stated, “Mudami played a major role in bringing people in Palnar to the mainstream. This angered the Naxals [Left Wing extremism, LWE]. We used to keep getting the info that they are planning to strike back.” BJP is the ruling party in the State.

On October 27, 2018, four personnel of the CRPF were killed and another two injured in an attack carried out by CPI-Maoist cadres just a kilometre away from the CRPF’s Murdana camp under Awapalli Police Station in Bijapur District. Troops of the 168thBattalion were out on an ‘area domination’ exercise and a road-opening operation between Murdana and Timapur when they were attacked around 4.10pm. TheMaoists first blew up a Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV) and then fired upon the injured troopers with automatic weapons, killing four personnel on the spot.

On October 25, 2018, a CRPF trooper was injured in an IED blast triggered by CPI-Maoist cadres in Sukma District. The incident took place when a team of CRPF’s 223rdBattalion was out on an anti-Naxal operation in a forested area under Jagargunda Police Station limits.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least seven civilians and nine Security Force (SF) personnel have been killed in 15 incidents of LWE-linked violence (data till November 11, 2018) recorded in 37 days, since the State Assembly Polls wereannounced on October 6, 2018.

In the interim, on October 8, 2018, intelligence units operating in Chhattisgarh warned of heightened Maoist activity in the State, especially in Bijapur, Dantewada, Narayanpur and Sukma, in the run-up to the State Assembly elections. At least nine incidents of LWE-linked violence havealready been recorded.

The Maoists had called upon voters to boycott the Assembly polls in the State.Among others, Maoist banners written in Hindi were recovered from forests in the Bastar regiononOctober 30, 2018, declaring,

Farzi Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha ka Chunao ka Bahiskar karo. Janatana Sarkar ko majboot karenge unka vistaar karenge. Janyudhya ko tej karke, daman yojna-samadhan ko harayenge. [Boycott fake Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) election. Strengthen and expand people’s government. Speed up people’s war to defeat oppressive regime]

Inspector Salim of Katekalyan Police Stationin Dantewada Districtstatedon October 31, 2018, that election preparations were going according to schedule, despite threats and the boycott call by the Naxals. He elaborated,

We are trying to ensure that polling takes place here. Forces from other areashave also come to assist us. It is true that Naxals exist inthis area and they have been campaigning and advocating against participationin elections; sometimes even scaring the locals in such a way that they desistfrom casting votes. However, we are prepared to face all challenges…It’s challenging but we are ready. Villagers are connecting with us.

According to a report dated October 31, 2018, the State Government has built up a polling booth in the Telam village of the Katekalyan region in Dantewada District.The villagers in the area will be getting an opportunity to cast their vote for the first time since independence and are reportedly excited about the construction of the polling booth in their village.

Meanwhile, Chhattisgarh Chief Minister (CM)Raman Singhstated on October 31, 2018, “We have prepared a roadmap on how better security can be provided to media and locals… We have adequate security for polls.”

Indeed, in view of the threat perception,in 18 constituencies falling in the Bastar region, which go to the polls in the first phase on November 12, about 65,000 additional troops from various Central and State Police Forces have been deployed, as disclosed by officials on October 31, 2018:“About 650 companies of central and State [from other States]Police Forces will be deployed for the first phase of polls in the State. The (personnel of) Chhattisgarh Police is in addition to this.”Chhattisgarh has a Police population ratio of 228.60 per 100,000 (as on January 1, 2017), substantially higher than the national average of 150.75, but significantly below the required strength, in view of the scale of the ongoing Maoist insurgency.There is no informationat present regarding additional deployment for the 72 constituenciesfor the second Phase of polls to be held on November 20. Around 50 battalions of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) remain posted in Chhattisgarh throughout the year.

In the 37 days since the notification of the Elections on October 6, 2018, SFs have neutralised seven Maoists in five separate incidents and arrested at least another 16. Continuing SF pressure has led to the surrender of at least 104 LWE elements in the state (data till November 11, 2018). Notably, over the past 10 months and 11 days, SFs have neutralised 104 Maoists in 46 separate incidents and arrested at least another 315 in the State. SF pressure has led to the surrender of at least 273 LWE elements in Chhattisgarh (data till November 11, 2018).

Assembly Elections in 2013 had been quite peaceful. On October 4, 2013, the Election Commission had announced two-phased electionsin Chhattisgarh on November 11 and 19, 2013.According to the SATP database, four SF personnel and one civilian were killed in 12 incidents of LWE-linked violence between October 4, 2013, and November 19, 2013.There were at least five Maoist fatalities during this period of 46 days. Moreover, the voter turnout stood at over 77 per cent across the State. One constituency (Kurud) saw an astonishing 88 per cent vote.

A high voter turnout is once again expected in the current Assembly elections, despite the relative spike in LWE-violence since the publication of the electionnotification. In an unrelated by significant development, according media reports on November 5, 2018, Muppala Lakshmana Rao aka Ganapathy, the 71-year-old ‘general secretary’ of the CPI-Maoist, had been replaced by his ‘second-in-command’ Nambala Keshava Rao aka Basavaraj (63). It is to be noted that Basavaraj was heading the CPI-Maoist’s ‘military-wing’, PLGA (People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army), since its inception. He is also suspected to be behind almost all major Maoist attacks that have taken place in Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Odisha in the recent past. Basavaraj is an expert in explosives and military techniques and has a good network with arms traders. He also has a reputation for greater proclivities to violence than Ganapathy. While this transition has not been confirmed by Maoist sources, if corroborated, it would suggest the possibility of heightened Maoist violence, despite the rising pressure of the SFs over the past years.

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

Sri Lanka: Fueling Uncertainty – Analysis

0
0

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

In a surprising political development, a coalition partner of the Sri Lankan Government, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), announced its decision to leave the National Unity Government (NUG) on October 26, 2018. NUG was formed on August 20, 2015, with a coalition between UPGA and the United National Party (UNP). Soon after the announcement, the Presidential Secretariat published two Extraordinary Gazettes to remove Ranil Wickremesinghe from the Prime Minister’s post, and to appoint former President and Kurunegala District Member of Parliament (MP) Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister. Justifying his sudden political maneuver while addressing the nation on October 28, 2018, President Maithripala Sirisena categorically stated “There was a policy conflict between Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe and me, during the last three and half years. Apart from policy differences, I noted that there were also differences of culture between Mr Wickremesinghe and me. I believe that all those differences in policy, culture, personality and conduct aggravated this political and economic crisis.”

Significantly, President Sirisena’s UPFA and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s UNP formed the NUG on a platform of good governance following the Parliamentary Elections held on August 17, 2015. There has, however, been growing tension between the coalition partners on several policy matters and the President has been critical of the Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and his policies, especially on economy.

Deepening the crisis further, on October 27, 2018, President Sirisena suspended Parliament until November 16, 2018, as Prime Minister Wickremesinghe refused to accept his unconstitutional removal and called for an immediate parliamentary session to prove that he retains the majority in Parliament. Further, on October 29, 2018, a new Cabinet of Ministers under Prime Minister Rajapaksa was sworn in before President Sirisena at the Presidential Secretariat in Colombo.

Reacting sharply to his sacking at a nationally televised press conference in the night of October 26, 2018, Wickremesinghe asserted “I am addressing you as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. I remain as Prime Minister and I will function as the Prime Minister. Only I have the majority. The only way that can be changed is through a no confidence motion or if I resign.”

According to the Article 42 (4) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament. Article 46 (2) states that the Prime Minister shall continue to hold office throughout the period during which the Cabinet of Ministers continues to function under the provisions of the Constitution unless he – (a) resigns his office by a writing under his hand addressed to the President; or (b) ceases to be a Member of Parliament. In the 225-member House, the Rajapaksa-Sirisena combine had only 95 seats and was short of a simple majority. Wickremesinghe’s UNP had 106 seats on its own, and was just seven short of the majority. Earlier, on April 4, 2018, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe successfully defeated a No-Confidence Motion engineered by Sirisena and backed by Rajapaksa. Of the 225 MPs, 122 MPs – 104 of the UNP, 16 of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), and one each of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) – voted against the No-Confidence Motion.

Meanwhile, UNP senior Ministers and MPs at media briefings held in Temple Trees, Colombo, on October 28, 2018, said they would take to the streets and protest against the unconstitutional power transfer and the proroguing of Parliament. Angry protests rocked Sri Lanka’s capital as thousands of demonstrators gathered on October 30, 2018, for a mass rally organized by UNP against what it said was a “coup” by President Sirisena. Police sources estimated about 25,000 people thronged the rally.

Separately, to ensure that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s privileges are protected until the Parliament makes a decision on a Prime Minister due to the crisis situation prevailing in the country, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya, in a letter to the President, on October 28, 2018, stated, “I consider it my foremost duty to protect the rights and privileges of all Members of Parliament, especially in the context of the serious political-constitutional crisis which has arisen in the country. I have received a request to protect the rights and privileges of Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe until any other person emerges from within Parliament as having secured the confidence of Parliament.” On October 30, 2018, in a letter to the President, the Speaker reiterated, “Once again, in the name of democracy, I kindly urge you to summon Parliament forthwith for the wellbeing of public and to ensure justice without allowing the country to be dragged into a crisis.”

Supporting Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, the main Tamil party, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which has 16 MPs in the House, in a statement issued on November 3, 2018, decided to support the no-confidence motion brought by the UNP against new Prime Minister Rajapaksa. Similarly, the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP, People’s Liberation Front) which has six legislators, also announced on November 7, 2018, that the party would support any motion brought to defeat the political conspiracy hatched by President Sirisena and former President Rajapaksa.

Condemning the President’s unconstitutional power transfer, a group of civil society representatives met Speaker Jayasuriya on October 31, 2018, and handed over a petition containing approximately 16,000 signatures obtained through the Internet, urging that Parliament be reconvened immediately to re-establish democracy in the country. Separately, on November 6, 2018, the Maha Sangh, a large group of Buddhist monks, gathered near the Buddha statue at Viharamahadevi Park in Colombo and walked to the New Town Hall demanding the restoration of Parliament and honor of democratic principles and processes. Prior to the convention at the Town Hall, the Maha Sangha came to Temple Trees and blessed UNP leader Wickremesinghe. The Maha Sangha chanted Seth Pirith [Most Powerful Protection incantation] and invoked blessings on Wickremesinghe.

In a setback to President Sirisena, Sri Lanka’s Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya on October 31, 2018, refused to endorse the President’s dismissal of the Prime Minister for a former strongman accused of rights abuses, the clearest sign yet that the move was unconstitutional. Jayasuriya’s refusal bolstered Wickremesinghe’s claim that the President acted outside the Constitution by dumping him in favour of Rajapaksa, a former President who ruled with an iron fist for a decade. In another blow to President Sirisena, Manusha Nanayakkara, a UPFA Deputy Minister resigned on November 6, 2018, and backed the ousted Wickremesinghe, declaring that in his opinion Wickremesinghe was still the legitimate Prime Minister as accepted by the Speaker.

Significantly, on November 2, 2018, a resolution signed by 118 MP’s against the appointment of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister was handed over to Speaker Jayasuriya. In the resolution, the MPs stated, “We also don’t accept any of the decisions and appointments made by the President that followed the appointment of Mr. Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister.” On the same day, UNP MP Palitha Range Bandara revealed that he was offered USD 2.8 million and a Ministerial portfolio to join the Rajapaksa Government.

The international community reacted adversely to the Wickremesinghe’s dismissal. Expressing great concern on November 1, 2018, Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) Antonio Guterres urged President Sirisena to revert to Parliamentary procedures and allow the Parliament to vote as soon as possible. Similarly, on November 6, 2018, the Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland encouraged the political leaders and people of Sri Lanka to engage in constructive dialogue and uphold the rule of law in order to resolve the crisis. Likewise, on November 7, 2018, the United States urged President Sirisena to reconvene Parliament immediately. Meanwhile, a delegation of the European Union (EU) issuing a joint statement in agreement with the EU Heads of Mission as well as the Ambassadors of Norway and Switzerland resident in Colombo declared, on November 9, 2018,

We consider it essential that Parliament be allowed to demonstrate its confidence by voting immediately when reconvened in order to resolve the serious uncertainties currently facing the country. Any further delay could damage Sri Lanka’s international reputation and deter investors. Respect by all stakeholders for the provisions of the constitution will be important to maintain the confidence of the Sri Lankan people in democratic governance and the rule of law.

In the face of growing calls to end the political impasse in the country, partially revoking his order that suspended the House till November 16, President Sirisena, by his order of November 1, 2018, recalled Parliament on November 5. Once again, on November 4, 2018, President Sirisena issued an Extraordinary Gazette notification summoning Parliament on November 14. According to the extraordinary gazette notification signed by Udaya R. Seneviratne, the Secretary to the President, Parliament would be reconvened on November 14 at 10:00 a.m.

However, deepening the political crisis further, on November 9, 2018, President Sirisena in an extraordinary Gazette notification announced the dissolution of the Parliament with effect from November 9, midnight, and scheduled general elections to be held on January 5, 2019. Observers say the dissolution was announced as Sirisena realized that his de facto Prime Minister Rajapaksa would not command a majority in Parliament. The UNP had a slight edge over the Sirisena-led UPFA as Rajapaksa, who ruled the country from 2005 to 2015 has been accused of grave human rights abuses and corruption, and is unlikely to gain the backing of the 16 parliamentarians of the TNA. The six JVP legislators had already announced that they would vote in favor of Wickremesinghe.

On the other hand, betraying Sirisena, barely two weeks after the President installed Rajapaksa in office, the latter, along with 44 former MPs, defected from the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the party led by Sirisena, and joined the Sri Lanka Podujana Peremuna (SLPP), a political party formed in 2016 by Rajapaksa’s younger brother Basil Rajapaksa. A SLPP source said 65 out of 82 former SLFP MPs will eventually join the new party.

Meanwhile, on November 12, 2018, several political parties including UNP, JVP, the TNA, Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) and the All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC), as well as the civil society organization, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), and Attorney Aruna Laksiri have filed petitions, naming President Sirisena, Prime Minister Rajapaksa, the Elections Commission and its members as respondents. The petitioners assert that the President has no power to dissolve Parliament under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and have requested the Apex Court to issue an order voiding the gazette notification issued by the President dissolving the Parliament, and to suspend the upcoming General Election until the verdict on the hearing is passed.

The political crisis started in the Island nation on October 26, 2018, by President Sirisena abruptly ousting Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and replacing him with Rajapaksa is expected to continue for quite some time, as the matter has now passed on to the Supreme Court.

*S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

Sri Lanka: Sirisena Tells Former MPs, Ministers To Return Vehicles To Avoid Charges

0
0

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena has asked that all former MPs, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers return their vehicles and public property to the relevant Ministry Secretary to avoid having legal action taken against them under the Election law.

Sirisena reiterated that strict action would be taken against any member of the government who misuses public property for election purposes. In his address to the nation on Sunday night, the President stated that he would extend all the support necessary to the Elections Commission to ensure that there is a free and fair election. He noted that at present, in accordance with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, a caretaker government is in operation from the time nominations are called for to the time where a new Parliament convenes.

Thus, only the President, Prime Minister and Cabinet members would function in this caretaker government. “All former state ministers, deputy ministers and MPs who no longer hold office are prohibited from using public property under election law.

Thus I request that all former state, deputy and ministers hand over your vehicles to the relevant Ministry Secretary. If there is a delay, I would be forced to take legal action and bring in the Police to recover such property, and regardless of party, strict legal action will be taken against anyone who violates the election law.

I would like to remind you that it is illegal to use government property for election purposes,” stated the President.

Vatican Cancels US Bishops’ Vote On Sex Abuse Reform Measures

0
0

By Ed Condon

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference has told the American bishops that they will not vote on two key proposals which had been expected to form the basis for the Church’s response to the sexual abuse crisis.

The news came at the beginning of the U.S. bishops’ conference fall general assembly, meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-14.

The instruction to delay consideration of a new code of conduct for bishops and the creation of a lay-led body to investigate bishops accused of misconduct came directly from the Holy See, DiNardo told a visibly surprised conference hall.

DiNardo said that the Holy See insisted that consideration of the new measures be delayed until the conclusion of a special meeting called by Pope Francis for February. That meeting, which will include the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences, will address the global sexual abuse crisis.

Apologizing for the last minute change to the conference’s schedule, he said had only been told of the decision by Rome late yesterday.

Ahead of the bishops’ meeting, two documents had been circulated: a draft Standards of Conduct for bishops and a proposal to create a new special investigative commission to handle accusations made against bishops.

These proposals had been considered to be the bishops’ best chance to produce a substantive result during the meeting, and signal to the American faithful that they were taking firm action in the face of a series of scandals which have rocked the Church in the United States over recent months.

Speaking before the conference session had even been called to order, DiNardo told the bishops he was clearly “disappointed” with Rome’s decision. The cardinal said that, despite the unexpected intervention by Rome, he was hopeful that the Vatican meeting would prove fruitful and that its deliberations would help improve the American bishops’ eventual measures.

While DiNardo was still speaking, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago intervened from the floor, expressing his support for the pope.

“It is clear the the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously,” Cupich said.

At the same time, he suggested that the work which had gone into preparing the two proposals should not go to waste.

Cupich suggested that if the conference could not take a binding vote, they should instead continue with their discussions and conclude with resolution ballot on the two measures. This, he said, would help best equip Cardinal DiNardo to present the thought of the American bishops during the February meeting, where he will represent the U.S. bishops’ conference.

“We need to be very clear with [DiNardo] where we stand, and be clear with our people where we stand,” Cupich said.

While acknowledging that the February meeting was important, he noted that responding to the abuse crisis “is something we cannot delay, there is an urgency here.”

Cupich went on to propose moving forward the American bishops’ next meeting, currently scheduled for June 2019. Instead, he suggested, the bishops should reconvene in March in order to act as soon as possible after the February session in Rome.


Convenient Demonologies: Stopping Migrant Caravans – OpEd

0
0

President Donald J. Trump has been engaged with berating human caravans, a spectacle that might have been odd in another era. At first instance, it all seems fundamentally anachronistic, a sort of history in reverse. It was, after all, the caravan packed with invasive pioneers that gave the United States its distinct frontier identity, moving with relentless, exterminating purpose in ultimately closing it.

On October 19, some 7,000 Central American migrants, mostly from Honduras and Guatemala, made an attempt to cross the bridge between Guatemala and Mexico. “Una necesidad nos obliga,” came the justification of a 20-year old man to the Washington Post. The ultimate destination for most: the United States.

Such a necessity does not merely apply to states in social and political decay. Honduras has historically been an eviscerated client state, its politics those of a marionette of Washington’s interests. In similar fashion, Guatemala continues to bleed before the preying involvement of Washington in its history. The US-owned United Fruit Company craved gangsters for capitalism, and the Central Intelligence Agency obliged in protecting its assets, assisting the overthrow of the Arbenz administration in 1954.

The Mexican authorities made various attempts to repel the human stream with violent though modest success. With the November mid-term elections looming, this small group became electoral dynamite for Trump. It gave him a chance to militarise matters, announcing the deployment of 5,200 troops to the US-Mexico border. (Some 5,600 have currently taken their positions.)

The language of General Terrence John O’Shaughnessy, in describing the proposed plan, resembled a description of an armed operation against an elevated enemy. “Our concept of operations is to flow in our military assets with a priority to build up southern Texas, and then Arizona, and then California.”

In the words of the previous US president, Barack Obama, “They’re telling us the single most grave threat to America is a bunch of poor, impoverished, broke, hungry refugees a thousand miles away.” Film director Spike Lee, presenting his latest effort, BlacKkKlansman, at the Los Cabos International Film Festival in Mexico, was even more unvarnished. “Agent Orange was on the campaign trail for his fellow gangsters and stirring his base by saying the migrant caravan was his invasion.”

If there is something that tickles and engages the populist sentiment, Trump is up for it. His “base”, as it were, is up for rocking, chilling and entertaining. Obama might accuse Trump of being a fan of the “political stunt”, but that is the essence of this administration, a sequence of aggravated rehearsals that have distracted when needed and enraged when required.

Some of these ploys have gone beyond the category of temporary fancy. Senior policy advisor Stephen Miller had demonstrated that policies of indignation can have purchase at chance moments. While Trump is always bound to claim copyright over such ideas, it was Miller who proved influential in sketching the selective Muslim ban and the head-scratching policy of separating children from parents at the border. Immigration is being larded with further, stifling regulations with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirming that a mere 30,000 refugees for resettlement will be accepted by the US in 2019.

Such cruel exercises are the stuff of modern reactionary politics, notably from governments wishing to remove the clammy hand of international law upon them. Refugees, the outsiders, the marginalised, are ideal fodder to mince and grind. It is the language of Australian Prime Minister John Howard who, in the federal elections of 2001, insisted that the island continent would become an impregnable fortress against the undesirables coming by sea. He illustrated this fact by deploying, much in the Trump manner, soldiers against refugees stranded at sea in August 2001. “We simply cannot allow a situation to develop where Australia is seen around the world as a country of easy destination.” Given Australia’s lethal natural barriers, the remarks were as incongruous as they were fictional.

It was a policy twinned with the feather brained notion, ruthlessly exploited, that terrorist operatives might sneak their way to Australia on leaky vessels, avoiding more salubrious options. As Australia’s defence minister Peter Reith brazenly asserted at that time, such boat arrivals “can be a pipeline for terrorists to come in and use your country as a staging post for terrorist activities”. Howard himself added taste to the fear: “you don’t know whether they have terrorist links or not,” he suggested rather casually to Brisbane’s Courier Mail.

Trump would have approved of such laxity, having himself claimed, with an approach immune to evidence, that there might well be “unknown Middle Easterners” heading to the US in these migrant caravans. When probed on the matter by CNN’s now bedevilled Jim Acosta, Trump twisted slightly. “There’s no proof of anything but they could very well be.”

Trump’s language of the demonised caravan is also the language of a host of European leaders who have decided to dust off chauvinistic sentiments long held in the archive and ignore any central, humanitarian approach to refugees. At work here is a species of depraved transatlantic consensus on cruelty propelled by strongman bullying. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán fantasises about Muslim hordes in an Ottoman invasion redux, a positioning that elevates himself as defender of the West against Islam and the dark forces of the barbaric East. “We don’t see these people as Muslim refugees,” he snorted in an interview with Bild in January this year. “We see them as Muslim invaders.”

Other states contemplate a further entrenched, barbed wire approach, finding much value in shirking or adjusting the refugee resettlement quota. Poland can add itself to Hungary in that regard, with Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki stating his position plainly to Radio Poland in January that “we will not be allowing migrants from the Middle East and North Africa to enter Poland.” Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are not far behind.

Like his Australian and several European counterparts, Trump has deployed the instruments of violence and demonization against refugees with a degree of commitment and, it must not be forgotten, success. It also supplies a fitful reminder how criticising him for doing so remains a more difficult exercise, given the number of states which have gotten a cold regarding refugees. A certain villainy against humanity has taken hold.

Hungary’s Jobbik Party Could Turn Out To Be Moscow’s Worst Enemy – OpEd

0
0

Moscow has placed more hopes in Hungary and its nationalist Jobbik Party to support Russia’s position in Europe against Ukraine, but it may have miscalculated in a serious way: Hungarians are a Finno-Ugric nationality and have an interest in protecting Finno-Ugric peoples within the current borders of the Russian Federation.

That interest is something that the Kremlin has ignored, pleased as it is by Hungarian nationalist interest in making claims against Ukraine and opposing European sanctions against Russia for its aggression there. But the Kremlin may be about to be reminded that Hungarians have interests which are anything but congruent with the powers that be in Moscow.

That is because the Free Idel-Ural Movement, a group that seeks to represent the peoples of the Middle Volga, half of whom are Finno-Ugrics (the Mordvins, the Mari and the Udmurts) has called on Hungary’s pro-Russian Jobbik Party to speak out in defense of these nations (idelreal.org/a/29595682.html).

Sures Bolyaen, the vice president of the Free Idel-Ural Movement has appealed to the Jobbik Party to come to the aid of its fellow Finno-Ugric peoples. The three Finno-Ugric nations in the middle Volga have lost their right to require instruction in their national languages and thus are being Russianized and Russified more than ever before.

The Russian attack on these nations should be enough for all other Finno-Ugric peoples to come to their aide, but there are other reasons as well. The Hungarians in general and the Jobbik Party in particular know that if other Finno-Ugric peoples are threatened with extinction, the Hungarians are as well.

“We are counting on the Jobbik Party to understand this and to represent the interests of Finno-Ugric peoples not only in Europe but also in the global international arena. Friends are recognized in misfortune. Today, the misfortune has come to our house, to Idel-Ural.” We look to other Finno-Ugric peoples and especially to the Hungarians to help us.

The Jobbik Party has taken the lead in demanding that the rights of ethnic Hungarians be protected in Ukraine, Bolyaen says; it is only right and proper that the same group should take the lead in demanding that the rights of their fellow Finno-Ugrics in the Russian Federation be equally respected.

Hepatitis C Treatment Can Be Shortened In 50 Percent Of Patients

0
0

Hepatitis C drugs cure more than 90 percent of patients, but can cost more than $50,000 per patient.

Findings from a new study could lead to significant cost savings. Preliminary data from the study, co-led by a theoretical modeling researcher from Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine and Loyola Medicine, found that in 50 percent of patients, the standard 12-week treatment regimen could be shortened to as little as six weeks without compromising efficacy.

“There’s a potential to save up to 20 percent of the costs of hepatitis C drugs,” said Loyola researcher Harel Dahari, PhD, co-first author of the study along with Ohad Etzion, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center in Israel. Senior author is Amir Shlomai, MD, PhD, of Beilinson Hospital in Israel.

The study was presented November 12 during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in San Francisco.

Dr. Dahari is co-director of the Program for Experimental and Theoretical Modeling (PETM) in the division of hepatology of Loyola Medicine and Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. Two other Loyola authors are Susan Uprichard, PhD, co-director of PETM and an associate professor in the department of microbiology and immunology and Scott Cotler, MD, head of Loyola Medicine’s division of hepatology and a professor in the department of medicine of Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

Hepatitis C is an infection caused by a virus spread through contaminated blood. It can lead to liver damage, liver failure and liver cancer. An estimated 70 million people worldwide, including about three million in the United States, are chronically infected with hepatitis C.

A class of oral medications called direct acting anti-virals (DAA) has revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C. In more than 90 percent of patients, the medications eliminate the virus and cure the patient, with minimal side effects. But the high cost limits access and is a substantial financial burden on Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers.

“Treatment currently is standardized to be given for a set period of time, usually 12 weeks, rather than being tailored to the individual patient,” Dr. Cotler said.

In the new study, researchers used a personalized medicine technique called modeling-based response-guided therapy to reduce treatment times when possible. After patients had undergone treatment for a few weeks, researchers measured how much hepatitis C virus levels had decreased. They used mathematical modeling to estimate how long it would take to completely eliminate the virus.

The study has included 22 patients so far. Mathematical modeling predicted that treatment could be shortened to 10 weeks in one patient (five percent of the total patients), eight weeks in eight patients (36 percent) and six weeks in two patients (nine percent). The other 11 patients (50 percent) needed to be treated for the standard 12 weeks.

Twenty-one patients remained virus-free. The only patient who relapsed had the most difficult-to-treat form of the hepatitis C virus, known as genotype 3.

The proof-of-concept pilot study showed that using response-guided therapy to reduce treatment times is feasible. To validate the results, a large multicenter trial is underway in Israel.

Dr. Dahari said that in addition to cutting costs, shorter treatment regimens would make it easier to treat hepatitis C patients who have limited health insurance benefits.

Study Casts New Light On Fishing Throughout History

0
0

A new study from The Australian National University (ANU) has revealed new insights into ancient fishing throughout history, including what type of fish people were regularly eating as part of their diet.

The study looked at fish bones unearthed in an archaeological dig on the Indonesian island of Alor – home to the world’s oldest fish-hooks ever found in a human burial site, dating back to about 12,000 years.

Lead archaeologist Dr Sofia Samper Carro of the ANU School of Archaeology and Anthropology said on the study identified a shift in fishing behaviours about 7,000 years ago.

“People on Alor people were fishing for open water species about 20,000 years ago, then about 7,000 years ago they started to fish exclusively for reef dwelling species,” she said.

Dr Samper Carro said a similar pattern was identified on the nearby island of Timor, indicating that the change in behaviour was due to environmental circumstances.

“It seems to be due to changes in sea levels and environmental conditions, although human-induced changes cannot be ruled out,” she said.

The results were made possible through the use of an analysis method traditionally used in biology to identify fish habitat in archaeological material. Dr Samper Carro said she was forced to experiment with a new approach due to the difficulty in determining the difference between the very similar looking bones of the area’s 2,000 known species of fish.

“This study is the first time researchers have been able to reliably determine fish habitat using vertebra through this method, and represents a significant step forward in being able to track human behaviour throughout history,” Dr Samper Carro said.

“Most of the bones you find in archaeological sites are vertebra, which are very complicated to identify to species and all look very similar.

“If we don’t know the species, we don’t know their habitat.

“In Indonesia you have more than 2,000 species of fish, so to be able to know which bones belong to which species you would need 2,000 species of fish in your comparative collection.

“I spent probably five months trying to match each fish vertebra to a species and I think I got through 100 out of 9,000 bones, so I needed to find another method.”

Dr Samper Carro instead turned to geometric morphometrics, a process that looks at slight differences in size and shape of physical objects. Using more than 20,000 digital images and plotting 31 points on each bone, she was able to digitally identify the likely habitat from each vertebra.

How Fares Trump’s Peace Plan? – OpEd

0
0

In mid-October 2018 rumours about Trump’s long-awaited Middle East peace plan were flying around the Israeli media. On the 22nd one TV channel reported a conversation between Donald Trump and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, during which Trump had apparently said that he was prepared to “get tough” if necessary with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I gave Bibi a lot,” Trump was reported to have said, referring not only to his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US embassy there, but also to the vast sums transferred annually to Israel by way of American aid.

Officlals and commentators were quick to draw obvious implications from these remarks – namely that the Trump peace plan embodied several elements that would probably prove distasteful to Netanyahu, and that they might require some painful concessions by Israel that could involve him in political difficulties at home. It seemed equally clear that, once the plan was unrolled and all its details revealed, Trump was likely to give no ground in demanding that Israel accept it in full, however distasteful certain aspects might be. He would expect this as part of the normal “give and take” of deal-making.

In fact these latest rumours were by no means new. Twice since the start of 2018 Trump has remarked that, in exchange for his actions on Jerusalem, Israel “would have to pay more” in any agreement with the Palestinians. The rollout of his peace plan which, according to media reports, could have taken place from about June 2018, has been awaiting a suitably propitious moment.

On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September Trump said that he intended to reveal the peace plan before the end of 2018. It is still not clear whether he intends to stick by that timetable.

Three main factors seemed to be holding up the rollout. There is PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s flat rejection of the plan in advance, and without knowing its contents, because of Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv. Abbas reinforced this position by declaring that the US was no longer acceptable as a peace broker.

A second inhibitory factor has been the near-universal belief that the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), masterminded the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Ankara. Saudi Arabia is the Arab state closest to America, and it was believed that the Trump peace team had been counting on widespread Arab endorsement, led by Saudi Arabia, to underpin the plan.

Finally, the US mid-term elections were looming, and Trump probably wanted them out of the way before making any move.

The elections on November 6, widely perceived as a popular vote on Trump’s administration, left him battered but unbowed. The House of Representatives regained a Democrat majority, but the Republican hold on the Senate was strengthened. With full Republican control of Congress no longer available, Trump will certainly find domestic legislation difficult to achieve in the next two years. He may well think it more congenial to turn his attention to foreign policy.

And indeed, on the day after the mid-terms, November 7, reports appeared in the media indicating that Jared Kushner was heavily engaged in preparing a detailed promotional campaign aimed at selling the peace plan to US political and public opinion, and to the world. The launch would, of course, be headed by Trump himself, but Kushner would then serve as the public face of the peace effort.

If in unveiling the peace plan the US is prepared to discount the tarnished image of Saudi Arabia in general, and MBS in particular, one major factor in gaining impetus for it will certainly be Israel’s improving relations with a range of other Arab nations. Towards the end of October Netanyahu and his wife made a surprise, eight-hour visit to Oman to meet the Sultan – the first of its kind in over two decades. There was a lavish dinner, traditional Omani music and what Netanyahu told his Cabinet were “very important talks”, promising more trips would follow.

Sure enough, while he was speaking Israel’s Sports and Culture Minister, Miri Regev, was at an international judo contest in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). When an Israeli athlete took a gold medal and the Israeli national anthem was played – totally unprecedented on the Arabian Peninsula – she burst into tears.

Later, while Israel’s transport minister was in the Omani capital, Muscat, proposing a railway between Israel and Arab countries, another Israeli official at an event in the Arab emirate of Dubai was talking about “peace and security”.

All this occurred in spite of the fact that neither Oman nor the UAE recognize Israel, and Israel has no official diplomatic relations with either.

With the odd and the unexpected the order of the day, how the Trump peace plan will be received, when it is finally revealed to the world, is anyone’s guess.

ISA, Haq And His Assassination – OpEd

0
0

Top Pakistani cleric Maulana Samiul Haq, who was also known as the ‘godfather of Taliban’, was stabbed to death at his residence in the garrison city of Rawalpindi on November 02, 2018.

Haq, 82, was the head of the Islamic religious seminary Darul Uloom Haqqania in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Akora Khattak town and also the chief of the hardline political party Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Sami (JUI-S).

Haq, a heart patient, was killed by unidentified attackers while he was resting in his room. His personal guard was sent out to the market and when he came back he saw Haq lying “in a pool of blood” on the bed.

Haq was the custodian of Darul Uloom Haqqania, a sprawling seminary in Akora Khattak, which was established by his father Maulana Abdul Haq in 1947, an Islamic scholar of the Deobandi school of thought and founding leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan.

On November 02, he was invited to Rawalpindi to address a protest against the acquittal of Aasia Bibi by the Supreme Court in a blasphemy case and also against the Pakistani Army, PM and Chief Justice. However, he couldn’t reach Islamabad and went to his residence for rest, where he was stabbed to death by unknown persons. However, earlier he had delivered his last speech to a gathering in Akora Khattak.

Haq’s fame reached its peak when the Afghan Mujahidin were fighting a war against the Soviet Union.

In the mid-1970s, Pakistani intelligence officials began privately lobbying the U.S. and its allies to send material assistance to the Islamist insurgents. Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s ties with the U.S. had been strained during Jimmy Carter’s presidency due to Pakistan’s nuclear program and the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in April 1979, but Carter told National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance as early as January 1979 that it was vital to “repair our relationships with Pakistan” in light of the unrest in Iran. According to former CIA official Robert Gates, “the Carter administration turned to CIA … to counter Soviet and Cuban aggression in the Third World, particularly beginning in mid-1979.”

In March 1979, “CIA sent several covert action options relating to Afghanistan to the SCC [Special Coordination Committee]” of the United States National Security Council. At a March 30 meeting, U.S. Department of Defense representative Walter B. Slocombe asked “if there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire?'” When asked to clarify this remark, Slocombe explained: “Well, the whole idea was that if the Soviets decided to strike at this tar baby [Afghanistan] we had every interest in making sure that they got stuck.” Yet an April 5 memo from National Intelligence Officer Arnold Horelick warned: “Covert action would raise the costs to the Soviets and inflame Moslem opinion against them in many countries. The risk was that a substantial U.S. covert aid program could raise the stakes and induce the Soviets to intervene more directly and vigorously than otherwise intended.”

In May 1979, U.S. officials secretly began meeting with rebel leaders through Pakistani government contacts. Here it was when the Haq family and/or Haqqania Madrasah was chosen to play a bridging role among the CIA, ISA and Afghan Mujahedeen. Maulana Anwarul Haq “Samiul Haq’s father” through a former Pakistani military official personally introduced a CIA official to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar that month. Additional meetings were held on April 6 and July 3, and on the same day as the second meeting, Carter signed a “presidential ‘finding'” that “authorized the CIA to spend just over $500,000” on non-lethal aid to the Mujahedeen, which “seemed at the time a small beginning.”

In the aftermath of the Soviet invasion, Carter was determined to respond vigorously. In a televised speech, he announced sanctions on the Soviet Union, promised renewed aid to Pakistan. Carter initiated a program to arm the mujahideen through Pakistan’s ISI and Haq, and secured a pledge from Saudi Arabia to match U.S. funding for this purpose. U.S. support for the mujahedeen accelerated under Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, at a final cost to U.S. taxpayers of some $3 billion to Pakistan. However, the decision to route U.S. aid through Pakistan led to massive fraud, as weapons sent to Karachi were frequently sold on the local market rather than delivered to the Afghan rebels; Karachi soon “became one of the most violent cities in the world.” Pakistan also controlled which rebels received assistance: Of the seven mujahideen groups supported by Zia’s government, four espoused Islamic fundamentalist beliefs—and these fundamentalists received most of the funding.

The program relied heavily on the Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had a close relationship with Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain’s MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People’s Republic of China, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government funneled all support to the Mujahedeen directly and through Haq.

Reports show civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan Durand Line area during this time in coordination with Gen. Hameed Gul, Qazi Hussain and Samiul Haq. Haq entered into practical politics in 1980. After his father died in 1988, he parted ways with Maulana Fazal Rahman, the then chief of JUI-P and formed his own faction known as Jamiat UIema-e-Islam-Sami (JUI-S). The chief of JUI-S remained a member of Majlis-e-Shura of former president General Ziaul Haq and was immediately made as the chairman of Difa-e-Afghanistan Council, which had to brain wash, train and support the Islamist insurgents to fight against the Afghan government even after the Soviet Union left.

William J. Casey the Director of Central Intelligence startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they take the Afghan war into enemy territory — into the Soviet Union itself. Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet Union’s predominantly Muslim southern republics. The Pakistanis agreed, and the CIA soon supplied thousands of Korans, as well as books on Soviet atrocities in Uzbekistan and tracts on historical heroes of Uzbek nationalism by Haqqani Madrasah of Samiul Haq.

Other direct points of contact between the US government and mujahedeen include the CIA flying Hekmatyar to the United States, where he was hosted by State Department official Zalmay Khalizad, and the invitation was personally delivered by Samiul Haq. Hekmatyar was invited to meet with President Reagan but refused, and was replaced at the White House’s October 1985 conference with mujahedeen by Younis Khalis. CIA agent Howard Hart developed a personal relationship with Abdul Haq which led to the Afghan meeting both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage regularly met with mujahedeen, particularly Burhanuddin Rabbani, whose meeting for the first time was facilitated by Samiul Haq. CIA agents are also known to have given direct cash payments to Jalaluddin Haqqani, who was educated, trained and made to fight by Maulana Anwarul Haq.

The U.S. offered two packages of economic assistance and military sales to support Pakistan’s role in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The first six-year assistance package (1981–87) amounted to US$3.2 billion, equally divided between economic assistance and military sales. The U.S. also sold 40 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan during 1983–87 at a cost of $1.2 billion outside the assistance package. The second six-year assistance package (1987–93) amounted to $4.2 billion.

Out of this, $2.28 billion were allocated for economic assistance in the form of grants or loan that carried the interest rate of 2–3 per cent. The rest of the allocation ($1.74 billion) was in the form of credit for military purchases. More than $20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and arm the Afghan resistance groups, from which a big amount was used to expand and accelerate Haqqania Madrasah and other Islamic Madrasahs in Pakistan which have been producing insurgents since day one. Samiul Haq was elected as Senator twice, from 1985 to 1991 and from 1991 to 1997.

After the government of Dr. Najibullah was collapsed and mujahedeen took over, Difa-e-Afghanistan ‘Defense for Afghanistan’ Council was changed into Difa-e-Pakistan Council and Samiul Haq was made the head of the council till his assassination. The council comprises more than 30 religious and political groups, which was formed to weaken the Afghan government and create stronger bloc against India. To accomplish the goal, the Pakistani army in particular the ISI with the help of Samiul Haq and Islamic extremists created Taliban. During this time most of the Afghan Taliban’s Shura members had studied in Darul Uloom Haqqania under Samiul Haq, thus he was much revered amongst the top Taliban leadership.

Ahmed Rashid in his book ‘Taliban: The Power of Militant Islam in Afghanistan and beyond’ has also written he was referred to as “the father of Taliban”.

He added that in 1999, at least eight Taliban cabinet ministers were graduates of Haq’s madrasah and dozens of graduates of his seminary served as Taliban governors, military commanders, judges and bureaucrats during their regime in Afghanistan. He went on to write that Younis Khalis, a Mujahedeen commander in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War and Muhammad Nabi, both studied under Haq.

Subsequently, months before the 2018 general elections, he declined to be a part of the religious parties’ attempt to cobble together another alliance as he had already announced support for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. And here it was, when his journey begun to be turning. Haq was appointed for the reconciliation between the Nawaz government and Kal-i-dam Taliban of Pakistan in 2014. Meanwhile, he was asked to push the Afghan Taliban to bring asperity into their fight against the Afghan government and the international forces. Though, he succeeded in fueling the Afghan Taliban to keep fighting in Afghanistan but failed in reconciliation between the Nawaz government and Kal-i-dam Taliban.

However, the pledges made between him and Tehreek-e-Insaf ‘the Army and PTI win-win elections’ had not been fulfilled. Meanwhile, Zalmai Khalilzad the US special envoy indirectly and Mr. Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal the Afghan Ambassador and special envoy of President Ghani directly reached Haq and seek his support in peacemaking process between Taliban and the Afghan government. The back-turn of the army and Imran Khan to Haq brought all factors to Haq utilizing his Islamic skills against the army and the Pakistani government. He had rightfully collected the data and intended to issue an Islamic verdict that should have proven activities of the Pakistani army and IK’s government non-Islamic including the judiciary, in particular the chief justice.

In conclusion, finally his intention to play a vital role in peacemaking between the Afghan Taliban, Afghan government and US, and issuing the Islamic verdict against the Pakistani army and PM paved the road to his assassination. However, the Pakistani Islamic scholars, parties and their couple hundred thousand students and followers have realized that how they have been non-Islamic and illegally used by non-Islamic military and government; and they are killed in one or other way at the end of the day, thus, they might not sit silently. On the other hand, the educated and broad minded Pakistani civilians have also realized that how the Islamic extremism created by their army has pushed their livings to the wall.

*Najibullah Azad is an advocate, writer, columnist, critic, researcher, analyst and a former spokesman to the President of Afghanistan E-mail: nj.aazad@gmail.com, Facebook: Najibullah Azad – نجیب الله ازاد

Bibliography
Corum, J. S. (2007). Fighting the War on Terror: A Counterinsurgency Strategy. Zineth Press.
Dyk, J. V. (2002). In Afghanistan: An American Odyssey. Bloomington: iUniverse.
Feifer, G. (2009). THE GREAT GAMBLE “The Soviet War In Afghanistan”. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Haq, M. S. (2018, November 3). Jirga. (S. Safi, Interviewer)
Haqqani, H. (2018). Reimerging Pakistan: Transforming a Dysfunctional Nuclear State. Noida UP: HarperCollins India.
James F. Hoge, G. R. (2005). Understanding the War on Terror. New York: Foerign Affairs.
Musharraf, P. (2006). In the Line of Fire. New York: Free Press.
Nojumi, N. (2002). The Rise of Taliban in Afghanistan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
Rashid, A. (2010). Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Second Edition. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Tirmazi, B. S. (1995). Profiles of intelligence. Lahore: Combined Printers.

Is Russia Arming The Taliban To Avenge Loss Of Ukraine? – OpEd

0
0

On November 9, Russia hosted talks between Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, the members of the Taliban from its Doha, Qatar office and representatives from eleven regional states, including China, India, Iran and Pakistan. The meeting showcased Russia’s re-emergence as a proactive global power and its regional clout.

At the same time when the conference was hosted in Moscow, however, the Taliban mounted concerted attacks in the northern Baghlan province, the Jaghori district in central Ghazni province and the western Farah province bordering Iran.

In fact, according to a recent report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the US-backed Afghan government only controls 55% of Afghanistan’s territory. It’s worth noting that SIGAR is a US-based governmental agency that often inflates figures. Factually, the government’s writ does not extend beyond a third of Afghanistan. In many cases, the Afghan government controls city-centers of districts and rural areas are either controlled by the Taliban or are contested.

If we take a cursory look at the insurgency in Afghanistan, the Bush administration toppled the Taliban regime with the help of the Northern Alliance in October 2001 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attack. Since the beginning, however, Afghanistan was an area of lesser priority for the Bush administration.

The number of US troops stationed in Afghanistan did not exceed beyond 30,000 during George Bush’s tenure as president, and soon after occupying Afghanistan, he invaded Iraq in March 2003 and American resources and focus shifted to Iraq.

It was the Obama administration that made Afghanistan the bedrock of its foreign policy in 2009 along with fulfilling then-President Obama’s electoral pledge of withdrawing the US troops from Iraq in December 2011. At the height of the surge of the US troops in Afghanistan in 2010, they numbered around 140,000 but still did not manage to have a lasting effect on the relentless Taliban insurgency.

The Taliban are known to be diehard fighters who are adept at hit-and-run guerilla tactics and have a much better understanding of the Afghan territory compared to foreigners. Even by their standards, however, the Taliban insurgency seems to be on steroids during the last couple of years.

They have managed to overrun and hold vast swathes of territory not only in the traditional Pashtun heartland of southern Afghanistan, such as Helmand, but have also made inroads into the northern provinces of Afghanistan which are the traditional strongholds of the Northern Alliance comprising Tajiks and Uzbeks.

In October 2016, for instance, the Taliban mounted brazen attacks on the Gormach district of northwestern Faryab province, the Tirankot district of Uruzgan province and briefly captured [1] the city-center of the northern Kunduz province, before they were repelled with the help of US air power.

This outreach of the Taliban into the traditional strongholds of the Tajiks and Uzbeks in northern Afghanistan bordering the Russian satellite states Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan has come as a surprise to perceptive observers of the militancy in Afghanistan.

It is commonly believed that the Taliban are the proxies of Pakistan’s military which uses them as “strategic assets” to offset the influence of India in Afghanistan. The hands of Pakistan’s military, however, have been full with a homegrown insurgency of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) since 2009 when it began conducting military operations in Swat and the tribal areas.

Although some remnants of the Taliban still find safe havens in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan, the renewed vigor and brazen assaults of the Taliban, particularly in the Afghanistan’s northern provinces as I described earlier, cannot be explained by the support of Pakistan’s military to the Taliban.

In an August 2017 report [2] for the New York Times, Carlotta Gall described the killing of the former Taliban chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour in a US drone strike on a tip-off from Pakistan’s intelligence in Pakistan’s western Balochistan province in May 2016 when he was coming back from a secret meeting with Russian and Iranian officials in Iran. According to the report, “Iran facilitated a meeting between Mullah Akhtar Mansour and Russian officials, Afghan officials said, securing funds and weapons from Moscow for the insurgents.”

It bears mentioning that the Russian support to the Taliban coincides with its intervention in Syria in September 2015, after the Ukrainian Crisis in November 2013 when Viktor Yanukovych suspended the preparations for the implementation of an association agreement with the European Union and tried to take Ukraine back into the folds of the Russian sphere of influence by accepting billions of dollars of loan package offered by Vladimir Putin to Ukraine, consequently causing a crisis in which Yanukovych was ousted from power and Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula.

Although the ostensible reason of Russia’s support – and by some accounts, Iran’s as well – to the Taliban is that it wants to contain the influence of the Islamic State Khorasan Province in Afghanistan because the Khorasan Province includes members of the now defunct Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Russia’s traditional foe, the real reason of Russia’s intervention in Syria and support to the Taliban in Afghanistan is that the Western powers are involved in both of these conflicts and since a New Cold War has started between Russia and the Western powers after the Ukrainian crisis, hence it suits Russia’s strategic interests to weaken the influence of the Western powers in the Middle East and Central Asian regions and project its own power.

In order to grasp the significance of the New Cold War between Russia and the Western powers, on March 4, Sergei Skripal, a Russian double agent working for the British foreign intelligence service, and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a public bench outside a shopping center in Salisbury. A week later, another Russian exile Nikolai Glushkov was found dead in his London home.

Skripal was recruited by the British MI6 in 1995, and before his arrest in Russia in December 2004, he was alleged to have blown the cover of scores of Russian secret agents. He was released in a spy swap deal in 2010 and was allowed to settle in Salisbury. Theresa May’s government concluded that Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Moscow-made, military-grade nerve agent, Novichok, and expelled 23 Russian diplomats. In a tit-for-tat move, Kremlin also expelled a similar number of British diplomats.

Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump assured their full support to Theresa May and also expelled scores of Russian diplomats. Thus, the relations between Moscow and the Western powers have reached their lowest ebb since the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in December 1991.

Although Russia might appear as an aggressor in these instances, in order to understand the real casus belli of the New Cold War between Russia and the Western powers, we must recall another momentous event that took place in Deir al-Zor province of Syria a month before the poisoning of Skripals who have since recovered.

On February 7, the US B-52 bombers and Apache helicopters struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir al-Zor that reportedly killed and wounded scores of Russian military contractors working for the Russian private security firm, the Wagner group. The survivors described the bombing as an absolute “massacre” and Kremlin lost more Russian citizens in one day than it had lost during its entire military campaign in support of the Syrian government since September 2015.

The reason why Washington struck Russian contractors working in Syria was that the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which is mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed over the control of some areas east of Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military Council (DMC), which is the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the onslaught of the Turkish armed forces and allied Free Syria Army (FSA) militias in their “Operation Olive Branch” in Syria’s northwest.

Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil refinery located east of Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of Deir al-Zor.

The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and inclusive – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of Syrian troops and Russian military contractors. Consequently, causing a carnage in which scores of Russian citizens lost their lives, an incident which became a trigger for the beginning of a New Cold War which is obvious from the subsequent events.

Sources and links:

[1] Concerted Taliban onslaughts on Kunduz, Faryab, Uruzgan, Farah and Helmand:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/afghanistan-taliban-captures-ghormach-district-161011141613477.html

[2] In Afghanistan, U.S. Exits, and Iran Comes In:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/asia/iran-afghanistan-taliban.html


Khan’s Five Days In China – OpEd

0
0

In Pakistan, it’s a precedent, when a new prime minister took an oath, his primarily official visit would be China. Pakistan foreign policy revolves around China, because of diplomatic, military and strategic interest. After celebrating 70 years of, all time tested friendship, both countries decides to take this mutual interest into strategic interest. For that, Chinese President Xi Jinping in April 2015, visited Pakistan signed an agreements worth of 46 billion dollar, now exceed 64 billion dollar, under the Belt and Road initiative (BRI). China- Pakistan Economic Corridor is a reflection of iron friendship of both countries, a new alignment to connect the continents of Asia, Africa and Europe.
Pakistan and China enjoyed cordial relations right after the establishment of China.

And arrangements between both countries is need of hour to secure the regional economic and security interest. China in a row to become an economic power. Premier of the state council of China’s visit Pakistan, invite Prime Minister Imran Khan to visit Beijing to further strength the economic and strategic partnership. A joint communique after long series of meetings, entitle as, “Strengthening China- Pakistan All Weather Strategic Cooperative Partnership” broadly cover all domains and dimensions of relations between both states.

In a diplomatic circle this visit called “Successful” as both countries enhance the cooperation in order to get win-win situation. Prime Minister Imran Khan met President Xi Jinping, Vice President Wang Qishan, Premier Li Keqiang, Chairman Standing Committee NPC, Li Zhanshu, Senior Ministers, State Councilors, Senior Officials from Government and Corporate Sector.  He delivered a lecture in the Party Central School, a basic training school, producing officers and leaders for the Government of China.  In addition to that almost 15 MOUS /Agreements were signed in various fields of cooperation between two nations.

The recent visit of China is more important for Pakistan perspective, due to the economic situation, trade imbalance, unbalance of payments and huge current account deficits. The purpose of visit to review the Free Trade Agreement with China to facilities Pakistani investor. China helped Pakistan in economic sector to boost its reserves and make sure certainty in economy because its affects CPEC projects. According to the joint statement “new era of principles set by the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good-neighborly Relations between the People’s Republic of China and Islamic Republic of Pakistan signed in 2005”.

The core points include in joint statements:

  • Political Relations and Strategic Communications
  • China Pakistan Economic Corridor(CPEC)
  • Trade, Investment and Financial Cooperation
  • Marine, Science and Technology, Space, Environmental and Agricultural Cooperation
  • Social Sector Cooperation
  • People to People and Cultural Linkages
  • Defense, Security and Counter Terrorism Cooperation
  • International and Regional Issues

In addition, the well explained and comprehensive joint statement reflects both sides commitment to pursue not only bilateral relations, but to overlook all regional issues, regarding security, defense and Peace process in Afghanistan. In a security domain both sides “expressed determination to safeguard the CPEC projects from all threats”. Enhancing cooperation to all sectors, especially “Socio economic development, Job creation, and livelihoods and accelerating cooperation in industrial parks, developments and agricultural”.

Meanwhile, a lot of development took place in regional politics. China and Pakistan reaffirm to enhance cooperation against three evils separatism, terrorism and extremism. Afghan peace process also discuss to maintain a peace and stability in region by collectives effort using forum of Afghanistan- Pakistan Action Plan for Peace and Solidarity (APAPPS). Middle Eastern issues, enhance cooperation between SAARC countries, combine effort work of Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Well, both countries enjoyed friendly relations, but after signing “China Pakistan Economic Corridor” this partnership shifted into strategic interest. China increasing involvement into regional politics, balancing the regional hegemony among all state holders. India, China, Pakistan and Iran major countries in this region with higher interest in this region.

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

Sri Lanka Democracy: 2018 Marks Turning Point for Sri Lanka’s Freedom Party – OpEd

0
0

For the past twenty-five years, Sri Lanka’s freedom party (SLFP) have enjoyed enormous success in Sri Lanka’s political history. Yet, despite these great achievements under the presidency of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena, the presidency of Sirisena has faced a complicated political scenario in the past few weeks. This complicated process rose due to the swearing-in of a new Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksha on 26th October 2018.

Losing the parliamentary majority severely limited the ability of Sirisena-Mahinda Government to control the parliamentary majority and push through loss without compromising with opposition parties such as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and the United National Party which comprises over 100 seats in a 225 assembly. The president dissolved the parliament under these circumstances and he has called on for general elections without having a floor test, this has been challenged by the opposition parties and the citizens of the country are confused and waiting for a stable democratic solution.

Looking back at the Sri Lanka’s post independent history, the 1978 Sri Lankan constitution gives the president the right to appoint a Prime Minister but the appointment needs the consent of the parliament, hence the executive powers is wasted by the Sri Lanka constitution in the president. It does not seem fair to say that Sri Lanka has failed to achieve a stable democratic system, hence, one could argue that this situation is a power transition to a power alteration.

Similarly, in 1950’s S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, the founder of Sri Lanka Freedom Party crossed over from the ruling party, the united national party and united the forces of Sangha, Veda, Guru, Govi, Kamkaru. At the elections of 1957, the ruling United National Party won only 8 seats. The alliance between the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the Mahajana Eksath Perumana for the first time headed by SWRD Bandaranaike won a total no. of 60 seats. “We are friends of all, enemies of none”, the statement should be a reflection for the decision makers of the SLFP who carried the mandate of the party that influences country’s policy for its future. Bandaranaike’s premiership sadly came to an end after the assassination by a Buddhist monk. Later, the assassinated prime minister’s wife Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first woman prime minister and under her premiership, Sri Lanka became a republic in 1972. After the massive defeat of Sri Lanka freedom party, the Sri Lankan 1972 constitution was replaced by the president J. R. Jayewardene in 1978.

After a 17-years gap, Sri Lanka Freedom Party combined in an alliance named as People’s alliance under the leadership of Chandrika Bandaranaike came into power in 1994. President Chandrika took a much more flexible approach during her tenure from 1995 to 2005. When Mahinda first won presidency in 2005, he won every province in Sri Lanka except northern and eastern provinces in the island country. Since, the end of war, Sri Lankan govt. under the leadership of Mahinda has been punitive. Thereby, Mahinda stepping into the limelight for presidential elections in a closely contested presidential elections with Ranil Wickramsinghe. In fact, during his second tenure from 2010- 2015, former president Mahinda Rajapaksha became more tough minded since the end of 30-year war in Sri Lanka. One could argue Sri Lanka govt. under SLFP presidency have been punitive in the past twenty- five years.

In 2014, Mahinda Rajapaksha announced snap presidential elections as the election date approached, Maithripala Sirisena, the general secretary of SLFP defected from the party and joined the opposition led coalition named United National Front. With Maithripala, over dozens of ministers and members of parliament resigned from the SLFP in order to carry out the mandate announced by Sirisena. January 5, 2015 general elections saw a significant higher turnout and Maithripala became president along with Ranil Wickramsinghe and it was the major defeat for Mahinda Rajapaksha and his United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). Soon after Sirisena was sworn in as president, he assumed the chairmanship of SLFP.

In contrast to the general elections in 2013, the 2015 general elections saw the UPFA led by Maithripala and the united UNF led by Ranil Wickramsinghe had retained its parliamentary majority until October 26, 2018.

The pragmatic policies implemented by Sirisena and Ranil Wickramsinghe government have gone much further than the policies that the two parties (UPFA and UNF) envisioned. The good governance reform from 2015-2018 have reworked the idea of moderate political, economic and social policies and to accommodate new methods in resolving the ethnic problem through a home grown solution. This president –prime minister’s strategy succeeded for reasons that have nothing to do with ideological or non-nationalism realignment to bring about a reconciliation process among the ethnic communities living in Sri Lanka.

During Sirisena’s last period especially in 2018, there was too much distrust built among the coalition partners of UNP and SLFP. These problems stem from the top, the new party PPJ led by Mahinda, a break-away fraction from the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) played the role of a broker and was building his reputation among the SLFP vote bank. This also led to a situation where the SLFPs to work together with the UNPs in consolidating the coalition government. Further, loss in efficiency due to the widespread distribution of responsibilities among the coalition cabinet members and the loss in the recent council elections led to the collapse of UNP-UNF coalition government.

SLFP has come long way since 1957. A stable party system in Sri Lanka is a crucial element in consolidating democracy. The political development of the SLFP for over six decades had created a strong voter base especially in rural areas of Sri Lanka.

Hence, SLFP’s policies are today inadequate to deliver Sri Lankan citizen’s interests. SLFP policy makers must craft a new strategy to tackle the domestic voter base and the international community in finding a future path to become a formidable party in taking Sri Lanka to the next level of socio-economic growth.

*Srimal Fernando a research scholar at Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA ) , India and an editor of Diplomatic Society for South Africa and Pooja Singh, a scholar of Masters in Diplomacy, Law, Business at Jindal School of International Affairs, India.

Morocco To Launch Its Second Satellite By Arianespace – OpEd

0
0

Arianespace issued a press release stating that Morocco is set to launch its second high-resolution Earth observation satellite in November 20 and that “Flight VV13 marks the ninth Earth observation mission for Vega, a versatile light launcher.

Flight VV13 will be performed from the Vega Launch Complex (SLV) in Kourou, French Guiana (South America).

The Launch Readiness Review (LRR) will take place on Monday, November 19, 2018 in Kourou to authorize the start of operations for the final countdown.

The MOHAMMED VI – B satellite is an Earth observation satellite built for the Kingdom of Morocco by Thales Alenia Space as system prime contractor and Airbus as co-prime.

It will be the second satellite of the MOHAMMED VI – A & B program, with the MOHAMMED VI – A satellite launched by Arianespace on November 7, 2017, also utilizing a Vega vehicle.

The MOHAMMED VI – B satellite will be mostly used for mapping and land surveying activities, regional development, agricultural monitoring, the prevention and management of natural disasters, monitoring changes in the environment and desertification, as well as border and coastal surveillance. Being complementary, the MOHAMMED VI – A & B satellites will jointly enable a faster coverage of zones of interests.” says Arianespace announcement.

So Morocco is set to launch its second ultra sophisticated observation satellite in November 20 from the Kourou Space Center in French Guiana and the new satellite will be dubbed Mohammed VI B. According to press reports, the new satellite has a panchromatic resolution of 50 cm, and is capable of taking more than 500 images a day and updating its data every six hours.

The new satellite, like the previous one, will have civilian uses : urban planning, agricultural monitoring, preventing and managing natural disasters, as well as monitoring changes in the environment and desertification.

It is wort noting that the launch of the Mohammed VI-B should take place a year after the first Moroccan Earth observation satellite, Mohammed VI-A, was successfully launched also by Arianespace.

The project, according to local press reports, is part of an agreement between France and Morocco signed in 2013 during the visit of former French President Francois Hollande to Morocco.

Therefore, Morocco is the first African country to deploy two earth observation satellites into a sun-synchronous orbit. Undoubtedly the space imagery provided by the two satellites will be of key importance in the implementation of national strategies for socio-economic development, especially those relating to the agricultural sector, which is considered as one of the main pillars of the Moroccan economy. They will also improve the management of water resources, prospect underground water, improve cartography and topography, and support the control of littoral zones, infrastructure and transport networks.

Trump’s Asia Policy Is Mostly About China – Analysis

0
0

Nearly two years on, the Asia policy of US President Donald J. Trump’s administration is beginning to take shape. With the exception of its attempt to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, it is mostly about China, or more accurately, what other countries can do to help it win its struggle with China for dominance in the region. Indeed, that seems to be the common prism through which a patchwork of US Asia initiatives is originating and being implemented. Its Asian allies and friends are beginning to see it this way and that US strategic policy toward them is much more about advancing its position vis a vis China than their own priorities.  They are responding accordingly.

Here is the context and their probable perspective.

US China policy is now clearly a mix of containment and confrontation. The new US National Security Strategy released in December 2017 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf  characterizes the US-China struggle as “a geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of world order… “. It also labels China as a “revisionist power” meaning that the U.S. thinks China wants to change the existing rules, norms and values that govern relations between nations. This is the “international order” that the U.S. helped build and now leads, and for which it is the principle arbiter and beneficiary. Following this lead, the US Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act that identifies China as the primary threat to US security and proposes a “whole of government” counter-effort.

Doubts regarding the more strident tone and tenor of US-China policy were laid to rest by US Vice President Michael Pence’s 4 October ‘it’s us or them’ speech. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-administrations-policy-toward-china/ He bluntly criticized China across the board and declared that “China wants nothing less than to push the United States of America from the Western Pacific and attempt to prevent us from coming to the aid of our allies”.  Confirming the policy shift, US National Security Adviser John Bolton said “The recent policy of the Trump administration to act against China has taken the Chinese by surprise _ _ _” https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-engaging-in-behaviour-that-is-troubling-japan-india-and-others-bolton/articleshow/66473844.cms

To combat the China ‘threat’, the official US strategy is to ” redouble [its] commitment to established alliances and partnerships, while expanding and deepening relationships with new partners that share respect for sovereignty, fair and reciprocal trade, and the rule of law.”  https://www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rmks/2018/277742.htm This means the U.S. is increasing pressure on its allies and friends to support its new more belligerent China policy.

Its strategy is manifest in its grand vision of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”. https://www.youtube.com/user/statevideo.  The core principles of the ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ include freedom of navigation, the rule of law, freedom from coercion, respect for sovereignty, private enterprise and open markets, and the freedom and independence of all nations. https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/unpacking-the-free-and-open-indo-pacific/   These are all elements of its new China policy.  So is its enhanced military and political relations with Taiwan. https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-official-tells-taiwan-to-modernize-its-military-facing-china-threat-2018-11 Within this framework, the U.S. is proposing – and pushing for – a renewal of the “Quad” – a potential security arrangement among the four large democracies of India, Australia, Japan, and the U.S. . To Asia, the intent of the Quad is to constrain and contain China’s burgeoning military power.  The U.S. is seeking to “reinforce India’s maritime capabilities as a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean region and beyond.”

Let’s look at some specifics. Although promulgated before Trump became President, the implementation of the 2015 US Asia Pacific Maritime Security Strategy https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/NDAA%20A-P_Maritime_SecuritY_Strategy-08142015-1300-FINALFORMAT.PDF complements its overall strategy regarding China. It declares that the U.S. is enhancing its defense posture in Southeast Asia. Its intent is to strengthen “our military capacity to ensure the United States can successfully deter conflict and coercion and respond decisively when needed.” To accomplish this, the U.S. is “working together with our allies and partners from Northeast Asia to the Indian Ocean to build their capacity to address potential challenges in their waters and across the region.”  Presumably this means first and foremost combating the China “threat”. The Strategy specifically warns that “we see countries developing new technologies that appear designed to counter [existing US] advantages.   This is a reference to China’s anti-access/area-denial strategy to keep the U.S. military out of its near waters in a conflict.

US policy initiatives toward Southeast Asia and allies like Australia and Japan are a derivative of its policy of containment and confrontation of China. They are dominated by what these countries can do to support this effort. The U.S. appeals to them to support its Freedom of Navigation Operations challenging China’s claims in the South China Sea—or to at least undertake their own. The U.S. wants them to join its maritime domain awareness network and is assisting them to do so.  It asks them to allow it to base or “rotate” its troops and equipment on their territory or to facilitate their presence and missions in the region by providing refueling locations for its planes gathering intelligences on China. For those that can, like Australia and Japan, the U.S. wants them to provide military assistance and training to key countries in the region to enhance their capacity to assist the U.S. in a time of need. Perhaps most important, the U.S. wants them to publicly welcome and support its political position and military presence in the region. So far the results are embryonic and mixed.

The U.S. is also making increasingly strident attempts to counter China’s growing soft power.  Because the US cannot hope to match China’s economic largesse, it’s soft power increasingly relies on the attraction of its economic and political values and the shared commitment of its allies and friends to democracy and the existing US led international order. Thus the U.S. has launched a campaign touting these values publicly condemns China’s value and behavior, and warning others of China’s nefarious intentions – in general and in particular in the South China Sea.  Moreover it has stepped up its “diplomatic” efforts to persuade Southeast Asians to support its policy. In January, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis visited Indonesia and Vietnam. His mission was to begin implementing the new US Defense Strategy that calls for expanding and transforming Washington’s network of alliances and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific into a “networked security architecture”. In late July/early August US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the Shangri-la Dialogue and the ASEAN Regional Forum in Singapore. Aside from the lobbying he did there, he also visited Malaysia and Indonesia presumably pushing this policy that at base is aimed at China.

Ironically, the more the U.S. hardens its policy against China and increases its pressure for support from the region, the more its “soft power’ wanes. Its ‘allies and friends’ in Southeast Asia in particular do not want a confrontation between the U.S. and China – at least one that will involve or negatively affect them.

 

Their particular concern is that the intensifying competition for influence and military dominance in the region could spill over into their domestic politics with the U.S. and China each supporting its supporters and opposing its opponents.  This happened during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and it could happen again. They rightly fear that in the supposed words of Thucydides “the strong will do what they can and the weak will suffer what they must”.

So Southeast Asian leaders are doing the best they can to preserve a modicum of independence and security for their nations. They are hedging between the two. As former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd puts it  “many US allies may decide to hedge their bets, waiting until it becomes clearer whether the US [policy] shift will be permanent and whether it will succeed.” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-22/how-avoid-avoidable-war Meanwhile they are increasingly aware that they are becoming pawns in a US-China ‘Great Game’ and that the policy of the U.S.  – – as well as that of China – –  towards them must be viewed through this prism.

*Mark J. Valencia, Adjunct Senior Scholar, National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haiku, China

This piece first appeared in the IPP Review. http://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/830.html

United ASEAN Essential In Reducing Tensions In SCS – Analysis

0
0

As the leaders of 10 Southeast Asian states gather for the 33rd ASEAN Summit this week in Singapore, hostile clouds are forming on the horizon of the South China Sea (SCS).

Just two months ago, China challenged the passage of the United States warship USS Decatur, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, near Gaven Reef and Johnson Reef in the Spratly Islands in the SCS by deploying its 052C Luyang II-class guided missile destroyer Lanzhou within 45 meters of the American ship forcing the Decatur to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid a collision.

The Decatur was carrying out a freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) mission in the SCS. It was the eighth FONOP since US President Donald Trump came to power in 2017. The US described the Chinese act as “unprofessional and unsafe” while China defended its action strongly, saying that it was protecting its sovereignty.

Any mistake or miscalculation in an incident such as this could trigger a major confrontation between the world’s two biggest powers. If that happens, the whole region will be in turmoil.
Last month, US Defense Secretary James Mattis canceled his Beijing trip after China downgraded the level of officials he was to meet. These incidents come at a time when both China and the US are engaging in a trade war.

At these tense and troubled times, ASEAN leaders must make efforts to maintain its traditional concept of consensus among member states in all aspects. ASEAN unity is the key to both its survival and progress. Without unity the relevance of ASEAN will diminish.

Another important factor is ASEAN’s central role in securing regional peace.

“Unity and centrality must be nurtured,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno LP Marsudi said recently in Jakarta.

The SCS conundrum, which emanates from China’s claim to over 80 percent of the SCS maritime area based on a controversial nine-dash line on the map dating back to the 1940s and what it sees as its historical rights, threatens the peace and security of the ASEAN region.

The SCS problem affects directly or indirectly the whole ASEAN region as Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei have overlapping claims with China over the Spratly and Paracel islands in the SCS. China also claims a small part of Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the SCS. The disputed area is part of what Indonesia calls the North Natuna Sea.

China’s assertive actions, such as building artificial islands in the disputed areas and militarizing them, have been described by Mattis as “intimidation and coercion” of China’s smaller neighbors. These have drawn the attention of major powers to the troubled waters of the SCS, a strategic international sea lane, through which US$5 trillion of international trade passes every year.

With the direct involvement of the US and major attention from countries like Japan, Australia, India, Britain, France, Germany and Canada, the SCS issue has now become a matter of international concern and no longer looks like bilateral disputes between China and individual claimant states from Southeast Asia.

ASEAN must play a central role in reducing regional tensions and securing peace and stability. For the ASEAN leaders, no option is left except to unite and maintain their consensus in dealing with all regional issues, including those relating to the SCS.

Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, the current ASEAN chair Singapore, and Thailand – the next chair of ASEAN — must play a leading role in convincing other ASEAN countries about the importance of ASEAN unity and a common stance on burning problems like the SCS.

What the ASEAN leaders can do at the 33rd ASEAN Summit is to call on China to speed up the negotiations to conclude the much-needed Code of Conduct (COC) on the South China Sea. But this COC, which is an essential and effective way of reducing tensions and preventing conflict in the region, must be based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and should be legally binding.

ASEAN leaders must adopt the 2016 historical decision of the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as the basis for resolving the SCS disputes. It is the first-ever legal decision that can become a benchmark to resolve maritime disputes in the SCS.

China has built numerous artificial islands through reclamation in recent years. Now it is turning them into military bases by building military facilities and deploying heavy weapons like surface-to-air missiles on those islands. Both claimant and non-claimant countries, including the US and Japan, believe that many of Beijing’s unilateral actions pose a serious threat to regional peace, security, freedom of navigation, overflight and legal fishing.

The Philippines took China to international arbitration in 2013 over the latter’s blockade of the Scarborough Shoal, which is located within the Philippines’ EEZ.

In July 2016, in a landmark decision, the PCA in The Hague clearly ruled that China had no historic title over the waters of the SCS because China had signed the UNCLOS and ratified it. Under the UNCLOS, all coastal states are entitled to 12 nautical miles of territory from their coast, a continental shelf and a 200-nautical-mile EEZ.

A majority of countries have asked China to implement the PCA’s ruling as it is legally binding, but Beijing, which boycotted the court hearings, has rejected the ruling.

In the greater interest of the region, China needs ASEAN and ASEAN needs China. For many years, China has been the biggest trading partner for ASEAN and a major source of investment and tourists. For a brighter future, both China and ASEAN must work together. It was a good sign when China agreed to a framework for the COC negotiations with ASEAN.

Leaders of ASEAN must call for a rules-based regional security architecture and a legally binding and effective COC during their summit in Singapore. Since there will be also the 13th East Asia Summit, just after the 33rd ASEAN Summit (EAS), in Singapore, ASEAN must play its central role in reducing tensions in the SCS as leaders like US Vice President Mike Pence, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will be present at the summit

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images