By Al Bawaba News

A Palestinian official said on Friday that ideas presented by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas cannot serve as the basis of a framework accord between Israelis and Palestinians.

“The ideas proposed cannot be accepted by the Palestinian side as the basis for a framework accord between the Palestinians and Israel as they do not take into account the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” he told Agence France-Presse, speaking on condition of anonymity, after Abbas and Kerry met in Paris this week.

“The Palestinian position explained to Mr Kerry is that the proposed ideas, particularly the insistences on recognition of the state of Israel as the Jewish nation-state, are unacceptable,” the official said.

The official said that Kerry’s proposals for the future of Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of the state, remain “vague.”

“[Abbas] restated the Palestinian position and his vision of a solution based on United Nations resolutions and the positions of the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League,” the official added.

The top U.S. diplomat has spent months trying to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree on a framework for resolving their conflict, but the negotiations have shown little sign of progress, with each side blaming the other.

The U.S. State Department described the Paris meeting on Wednesday and Thursday as “constructive,” and said Kerry and Abbas had agreed to stay in touch in the coming weeks.

Original article

The article Kerry’s Framework Proposal Unacceptable To Palestinians appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Giovanni Daniele Valvo

The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the subsequent break-up of the Soviet Union brought to a drastic reshaping of the Russian military power. While the USSR counted on a system of worldwide military installations, the Russian Federation maintained only a limited military presence outside its borders, mainly in its “Near Abroad.” Since the withdrawal, in 2002, from the Cam Ranh Bay base in Vietnam, the naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartus is Moscow’s only military base outside the former Soviet space, as well as one of the last traces of the Soviet military empire.

Following a list of the current Russian overseas military bases and facilities by country.

Abkhazia: 7th Military Base on the site of the former Bombora airfield, near Gudauta

Armenia: 102nd Military Base in Gyumri and 3624th Air Base in Yerevan

Belarus: Volga-type radar station near Hantsavichy and Baranovichi, and naval VLF transmitter near Vileyka

Kazakhstan: Balkhash-9 Radar Station near Lake Balkhash, Sary Shagan proving grounds and the Baikonur Cosmodrome

Kyrgyzstan: Kant Air Base and naval testing station at Lake Issyk Kul

South Ossetia: 4th Military Base on the northwestern outskirts of Tskhinvali and Java, and troops in the Lelingor District

Syria: Material-Technical Support Point in Tartus

Tajikistan: military bases in Dushanbe, Qurghonteppa and Kulab, joint use of the Ayni Air Base and Okno space facility near Nurak

Transnistria: Joint Control Commission in the Dniester Valley Security Zone (SZ)

Ukraine: Black Sea Fleet naval base in Sevastopol

However, the reaffirmation of the Russian power in Eurasia, and the always more unbearable US global military presence, are allowing Moscow to expand its military presence both within and beyond the former Soviet borders. After strengthening its position in the region by turning South Ossetia and Abkhazia into strategic bulwarks against NATO’s eastward expansion, the Kremlin has improved military cooperation with former Cold War allies such as Cuba, Vietnam, the Seychelles and, most recently, Egypt, as well as with new partners such as Venezuela and Cyprus. As a result, the next few years may see the consolidation of the Russian military power also in those regions, such as the Mediterranean and the Caribbean, where Western military presence is traditionally stronger.

The article The Russian Military Empire Two Decades After Soviet Collapse – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By SATP

On February 8, 2014, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), an active component group of the Coordination Committee (CorCom) of six Imphal Valley-based militant outfits, killed an Assam Rifles (AR) trooper and injured three others, near the Nambasi village under the Chasad Police Station in Ukhrul District. The AR personnel were on a road opening patrol when the militants detonated a powerful bomb.

Republic Day (January 26, 2013) celebrations in Manipur were also marred by four bomb blasts amidst high security measures, after CorCom called for a boycott. However, no one was injured in the explosions. The first bomb exploded near the deputy commissioner’s office in the eastern part of Imphal, which is also close to the official residence of Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh. CorCom, while claiming responsibility for the blasts declared in a Press Statement, that that the series of blast was executed as part of the collective call by several outfits of the “Western Southeast Asia” (Northeast India) region against Republic Day celebrations.

Earlier, on October 7, 2013, CorCom and the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) had also jointly called an 18 hour general strike in Manipur and Twipra (Tripura), with effect from October 14 midnight till 6 pm of October 15, to protest against the ‘forceful merger agreements’ of October 15, 1949, by which Manipur and Tripura was merged into the Indian Union.

Despite a dramatic decline in fatalities in the State in 2013, it is evident that the militants continue to execute attacks at will. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) database, total fatalities, at 110 [25 civilians, 12 Security Forces-SFs, 73 militants] in 2012, reduced to just half, at 55, in 2013 with 21 civilians, six SFs and 28 militants killed in 10 incidents. 2013 recorded 76 incidents of bomb blast, in which 24 people were killed and 103 were injured; 107 incidents of explosion had been recorded in 2012, though the total fatalities were nine, and 90 persons were injured. Of the 107 blasts in 2012, Corcom was responsible for 33; 28 of the 76 incidents in 2013 were attributed to CorCom. 2013 data also demonstrates a sharp lethality of bomb attacks, despite their reduction in frequency.

Militant fatalities registered a sharp decline in 2013, with 28 killed, as against 73 in 2012. There were 13 incidents of encounters between militants and SFs, resulting in 15 militant fatalities, in 2013, while 2012 registered a total of 33 encounters, in which 48 militants were killed. There were no SFs fatalities in these encounters.

Fratricidal clashes between Naga militants also declined in frequency. There were at least 10 clashes between the Zeliangrong United Front (ZUF) – at times a combined force of ZUF and Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland–Khaplang (NSCN-K) – and the NSCN-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM), which resulted in 25 fatalities in 2012. There were just seven such incidents and nine fatalities through 2013. In one major incident, on November 12, 2013, three ZUF militants were killed and one NSCN-IM cadre was injured, in a fierce five-hour gun-battle between NSCN-IM and ZUF cadres near Bhalok village in Tamenglong District. The injured NSCN-IM cadre succumbed to his injuries on January 17, 2014.

According to media reports, the ‘close ties’ between PLA and the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) appear to have ruptured. On May 29, 2013, Shambhu Singh, Joint Secretary (Northeast) in the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), observed, “The link between Maoists and Manipur’s PLA has been broken long time ago due to logistical problem in Myanmar and strong presence of Security Forces along the India-Myanmar border”. He added that the relationship between these two rebel outfits had disintegrated over the preceding year, after the PLA shifted their training camps to Taga in the Northern part of Myanmar. In October 2008, top CPI-Maoist leaders had met PLA leaders in Myanmar and signed a Joint Declaration for unified actions to wage war against India. Noting that the Maoists had not been able to establish themselves in the other States of the Northeast, Singh added, “They (Maoist leaders) have visited Manipur and Nagaland, but they have not been able to establish themselves.” Singh also disclosed that Indian rebel groups operating from Myanmar had been facing difficulties infiltrating into India, since most of the routes had been blocked by the SFs. The Khaplang faction of the NSCN (NSCN-K) had even cautioned the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) not to move out of Myanmar, in view of the strong security presence, according to Singh. Singh, conceded, nevertheless, that there were certain areas along the international border that needed improvement: “But the overall troop deployment has improved.”

In May 2012, the Myanmar Government had ordered militants operating in India’s Northeast – including Manipuri groups such as PLA and People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) – to shut down their camps and training facilities and leave Myanmar.

There were at least 23 recorded incidents of abductions through 2013, resulting in 40 abductions; as against 30 registered incidents involving 46 abductions in 2012 [as a large proportion of such incidents go unreported, these are likely to be severe underestimates]. In one incident, on August 1, 2013, seven persons, including two engineers from Kolkata, were abducted by Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA) militants from Imphal East District. The other five included two senior engineers of the Manipur Irrigation and Flood Control Department (IFCD), two drivers of the department and a local contractor. They were all released by the abductors on August 4, 2013. According to the abductees, the abductors told the hostages that they had been abducted because the IFCD always turned down their “requests.” The hostages denied any knowledge of ransom being paid. Engineers of the department also denied a financial exchange. No arrests were made.

Only 14 incidents of extortion were recorded in 2013, as against 35 in 2012 [once again, this is a severely under-reported crime]. In one incident, on November 4, 2013, the National Investigating Agency (NIA) seized INR 11.4 million in cash from a Bangalore businessman. According to investigators, the money belonged to the Manipur-based PREPAK and United People’s Party of Kangleipak (UPPK). During questioning, the agency learnt that PREPAK-UPPK had raised the money through extortion and that its ‘general secretary’ N. Shanti Meitei gave the money for relocation to his childhood friend, who is a real estate developer based in Bangalore. The NIA refused to share the name of the businessman and said that his statement had been recorded before a magistrate.

At least 273 militants surrendered in 2013, as against 303 in 2012. In the most significant incident of the year, on September 9, 2013, 149 cadres belonging to three different underground organisations laid down arms and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Suspension of Operations (SoO) pact with the Government. The groups that laid down arms included 44 cadres of the Nongdrenkhomba faction of Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP-Nongdrenkhomba), 50 of the Kuki National Liberation Front (KNLF) and 55 of the Kuki Revolutionary Front (KRF).

368 militants were arrested through 2013, as compared to 609 in 2012. Arrested militants prominently included 50 of the PLA; 46, Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL); 34, PREPAK; 30, Progressive faction of PREPAK (PREPAK-Pro); 20, United Nation Liberation Front (UNLF); 19, KCP-Military Council (KCP-MC); 13, KCP; nine, ZUF; and five, NSCN-K.

Worryingly, the year recorded seven incidents of attacks on non-locals, resulting in 12 fatalities and 39 persons injured, as against no such attack through 2012. In the worst attack, on September 13, 2013, at least nine migrant labourers from Assam were killed and another 11 were injured in an explosion inside a working shed located on the slab cover put up over Naga Nullah (drain) at Nagamapal in Imphal West District. While five persons died on the spot, four succumbed to their injuries later. The year also saw an intensive campaign against ‘illegal migrants’ in the State by the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS), a umbrella body of several Hill and Valley based civil organizations demanding introduction of the ILP system in the State. During the recent communal unrest in Myanmar, sources claim that an estimated 4,200 Rohingya Muslims affected by the unrest allegedly intruded to India illegally through Bangladesh, and that at least 400 of them entered Manipur.

2013 also saw the Kuki State Demand Committee (KSDC) renewing its demand for the creation of a separate ‘Kuki State’, an area covering around 65 per cent of the whole territory of Manipur, spread over five Hill Districts: Churachandpur, Chandel, Senapati, Tamenglong and Ukhrul. On October 17, 2013, the Kuki National Organisation (KNO), an umbrella body of Kuki militant formations, also reiterated its demand for a separate Kuki State carved out of Manipur’s territory. Moreover, on September 13, 2013, a large number of people from the Kuki community gathered at the Brigadier Thomas Ground in the Kangpokpi area of Senapati District, to observe ‘Kuki Black Day’, commemorating the death of over 900 Kukis in the Naga-Kuki clashes of the early nineties. Haojakhup Lupheng, the Vice-President of the Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM – an apex body of the Kukis), complained that, instead of taking action against the NSCN-IM, the Government has started dialogue with them. He demanded that the Government should deliver justice to the victims first, before reaching any agreement with the NSCN-IM. A SoO between the Government and the two umbrella organizations of Kuki outfits, KNO and the United Peoples Front (UPF) has also been extended for another one year, with effect from August 30, 2013, at a tripartite meeting held at New Delhi.

Meanwhile, the United Naga Council (UNC) held its seventh tripartite talk and first round of political level talks in Senapati District on February 6, 2014, focusing on its primary agenda for alternative arrangements for the Nagas in Manipur, outside the State Government, and pending a final settlement to the ongoing negotiations between the NSCN-IM and the Government of India. Paul Leo, Chairman of the Committee for Alternative Arrangements stated that the upgradation of the talks to the political level was a positive development, as the issue was directly discussed at this level. Meanwhile, KIM noted that the outcome of UNC’s tripartite talk at Senapati, in whatever form, would not be accepted by the Kukis, since the objective behind the talks is purely for the disintegration of Manipur, as well as for the disturbance of peace and tranquility among the major ethnic tribes of the State.

Significantly, on August 15, 2013, Chief Minister O. Ibobi Singh had declared that his Government was committed to the protection of the State’s territorial integrity. Any attempt to disintegrate the State in the form of ‘Alternative Arrangements’ or Kuki Statehood was impossible and not permissible, the Chief Minister asserted. Also, on December 8, 2013, the Union Home Ministry’s Joint Secretary (North East), Shambhu Singh, had observed that it is still uncertain when the vexed Naga issue could be resolved and that, currently, nothing was certain on what the outcome of the ongoing peace talks with the NSCN-IM would be. Admitting that the dialogue with the Isak-Muivah led faction of the Naga rebel group had not seen any concrete progress, the Joint Secretary disclosed that the outfit had submitted its charter of demands in July 2011, after abandoning the demands for sovereignty, unification of Naga areas and Nagalim (Greater Nagaland). He noted that, the involvement and consent of the Governments of Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland was necessary, regarding the NSCN-IM’s demands, the Centre is yet to give any reply to the Naga rebel group.

The year also saw the merger of two Naga outfits, the Manipur Naga Revolutionary Front (MNRF) and United Naga People’s Council (UNPC), to form a new group, the Manipur Naga People’s Front (MNPF). In a recent incident, the MNPF carried out a bomb attack on December 20, 2013, at the residence of NSCN-IM’s ‘town commander’, Newmai Liangmei, at Bulen Colony in Senapati District.

Despite the visible slowdown of the surge of violence in Manipur, the continuous activities of the militants, the competing ethnic demands and rivalries, and the failure of the State to resolve the conflicts, continue to undermine peace in the State.

The article India: Manipur Terror Assessment – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Nava Thakuria

The Asia-Pacific Forum of Environmental Journalists (APFEJ) has expressed deep shock and sorrow at the self-immolation of a Guwahati city dweller demanding land-settlement and urged authorities to initiate due consultations to resolve the issue amicably.

The journalist forum also appealed to the hundred thousand conscious citizens of Guwahati to take proper initiatives for
safeguarding the reserve forest areas and wetlands inside the city from unwanted human occupancy.

APFEJ, which is based in Bangladesh, opined that an incident like self-immolation for a cause of land settlements is surprising and also unheard of in the history of the Asia-Pacific region.

Media reports pouring from Guwahati describe that Assam witnessed the first ever self-immolation in its history as a means of agitation on February 24. The incident took place outside the Assam secretariat at Dispur, when a man called Pranab Boro set himself on fire demanding the land rights.

Pranab Boro, around 45 years old and a resident of the city set himself  suddenly ablaze with in the morning hours, following which the police on duty immediately sent him to the Guwahati medical college hospital with severe burn injuries. The hospital superintendent Dr Ramen Talukdar said that Boro suffered over 95 percent burn injuries.

Boro, a carpenter by profession, left behind a family with his wife
and three children. An active member of Krishak Mukti Sangram Samity (KMSS), an Assam based farmer’s organization, Boro died of burn injuries by the same evening in the hospital. Soon after the self-immolation by Boro, the KMSS blamed the Assam government led by Tarun Gogoi for it and declared the suspension of all protest programmes.

Mentionable is that the KMSS president Akhil Gogoi earlier declared ‘any kind of actions’ against the authority for the land rights to nearly 80,000 indigenous families who are living in various hills and abundant areas of the city. While demanding the State government to provide valid land papers to these settlers, the KMSS chief also threatened the government otherwise to face the ‘consequence’.

The chief minister Gogoi, however, disagreed to the activist’s demand arguing that the government would not allow “anyone to settle in forest reserves or wetlands.”

“The wanton destruction of forests have had led to flash-floods resulting in heavy erosion rendering many homeless and affecting lakhs acres of agricultural land due to the siltation. The encroachment on wetlands will also lead to an alarming situation and may result in drinking water scarcity, health and other problems,” asserted Gogoi.

The Assam cabinet had recently approved to offer land settlement
papers to those indigenous families residing on the government land
till January 28, 2001, but it clarified that the acquired land must
not fall in forest reserves and wetlands. Accordingly Gogoi delivered
land papers to 500 landless families of the city in a function held at
Srimanta Sankardev Kalakhetra on Monday. The first recipient of was Purnima Saikia, mother of Dipamoni Saikia who died in a bomb blast that took place in the city on October 30, 2008.

“We have started the process of distribution of land patta to those
below the poverty line, homeless and landless people who are occupying government lands for 10 years and above from today and it would be completed in due course of time,” informed Gogoi.

The chief minister termed the self-immolation attempt as very
unfortunate and asked the hospital authority to take all necessary
steps for Bodo’s treatment. However Gogoi reiterated that the
government would not “allow encroachment on forests and wetlands at any cost.”

The KMSS maintained its demands that all the landless tribal families who are dwelling in various hills and low-land areas of Guwahati till December 13, 2005 must get the settlements. The KMSS leaders initially tried to disrupt the chief minister’s program at Kalakhetra but filed due to heavy security arrangements.

While appreciating the Assam government for its pledge to safeguard the hills and wetlands of Guwahati, the APFEJ in a statement issued by its chairman Quamrul Chowdhury, stressed that the government in Dispur must show its sincerity in recovering the arable lands already gabbed by big business groups in the city areas.

The APFEJ also requested the media, primarily the satellite news
channels, to avoid repeatedly airing the visuals of the immolation as it may result in tremendous psychological implication on the children and young people.

Finally the forum has appealed to the agitators to make their point of views clear regarding the demand for the land settlement to city dwellers that may have gone against the environmental interest. However, it insisted on city dwellers’ getting land rights in separate localities of the city, which do not fall under the eco-sensitive zone.

The article India: APFEJ Expresses Shock At Self-Immolation In Guwahati appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Eurasia Review

By Meredith Buel

The Obama administration appears to be rethinking options regarding the civil war in Syria following a deadlock in peace talks, the rapidly growing death toll, and the expansion of the massive humanitarian crisis.

The bombings in Syria continue.

The civil war is grinding into its third year.

The moderate opposition to the Assad government is weaker.

“What has happened is that Assad and Hezbollah are winning and the al-Qaida affiliates are becoming stronger within the insurgency,” said Michael O’Hanlon, who is with the Brookings Institution. “So our current policy is failing to prevent the very outcomes that we most fear.”

Analysts say the strength of groups inspired by al-Qaida is actually helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who calls all the rebels terrorists.

“The narrative that is prevailing today is that this is a fight between the Assad regime and al-Qaida,” said Mideast analyst David Schenker, a Middle East analyst at The Washington Institute. “And therefore the United States, the Obama administration, has taken this ambivalent position.”

The conflict has killed more than 135,000 people and has driven more than nine million from their homes.

The U.S. hoped the peace talks in Geneva would bring a breakthrough, but the latest round ended in deadlock.

“It is very clear that Bashar al-Assad is continuing to try to win this in the battlefield rather than to come to the negotiating table in good faith,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Syrian military pilots are dropping barrel bombs on civilian populations. This has so terrified people in recent weeks that a half-million have fled their neighborhoods.

Analysts say the Obama administration could provide intelligence on the pilots to help the rebels stop the carnage.

“We don’t see so many fixed wing aircraft flying around Syria anymore because most of the pilots have defected,” said David Schenker. “We have got to work on this with the remaining helicopter pilots either by convincing them to leave or by helping the rebels to better target them.”

Analysts also say the U.S. and its allies can still build the moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA) into an effective force.

They say the FSA could be supplied with anti-tank weapons, better ammunition and cash to pay fighters.

The CIA could also expand its modest rebel training program in Jordan.

However, officials say President Barack Obama remains skeptical about any step that could draw the U.S. into the war.

“History would suggest that Obama does not want to play any major role in this war,” Michael O’Hanlon said. “And he prefers to ignore it for as long and as often and as much as he can.”

Short of military force, it’s not clear how Washington can change the course of the war, in which Syria’s government is supported by Iran and Russia.

The article Obama Rethinks Policy On Syrian Civil War appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dean Baker

Many people already had low opinions of the Wall Street elite. I’m referring to the investment-banker types who get incredibly rich through financial manipulations, government bailouts and implicit government guarantees provided for too-big-to-fail banks. But a recent New York magazine piece showed that even the most jaded were being too generous in their assessment of this gang.

Kevin Roose, who was working as a New York Times reporter at the time, managed to infiltrate a black-tie party at the St. Regis Hotel sponsored by a secret Wall Street fraternity. The so-called Kappa Beta Phi (the reverse of Phi Beta Kappa, the academic honor society) was not made up of a bunch of college kids or recent grads. It featured many of the leading figures on Wall Street — multimillionaires and billionaires, all of whom were well past the age at which we expect people to start being responsible for their actions.

Roose, whose new book, “Young Money,” includes this episode, reported on childish skits by men dressed up in drag and sexist and homophobic jokes directed against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D–Mass., among others. There were also tone-deaf wisecracks about the financial crisis and their bailout by the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department, which apparently is quite amusing to these people.

The rest of the country has experienced these events a bit differently. On the basis of Congressional Budget Office projections, the collapse of the housing bubble will have cost the country more than $24 trillion ($80,000 per person) in lost output through 2024. The people who are unemployed, underemployed or have lost their homes probably don’t have as much to laugh about these days as the brothers of Kappa Beta Phi.

The anger prompted by Roose’s account makes this a great time to bring back the idea of taxing their speculation. While Dodd-Frank reforms will curb some of the worst abuses, the Wall Streeters are still making huge fortunes shuffling money rather than doing anything productive. A modest tax can raise a huge amount of money for productive ends, such as infrastructure and education, while making shuffling money a bit less profitable.

Last year, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio introduced a bill that that would place a tax of 0.03 percent (3 cents on $100) on the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds and derivatives. In other words, they are proposing a very modest sales tax. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that this tax would raise almost $40 billion a year. That’s almost twice the amount needed to extend unemployment benefits for a full year.

The article Wall Street Boys Gone Wild – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ivan Eland

A United Nations panel recently spent a year and lots of money from contributing nations, including the United States, to arrive at an obvious conclusion already known to the world: North Korea severely abuses human rights. The question remains, “What can be done about it?” The answer remains, “Not much.”

Yet public criticism of its human rights record by international bodies, such as the United Nations, and individual states, such as the Unite States, usually causes North Korea to deny it, then fume, and then continue or escalate the abusive practices just to spite the international community.

And Kim Jong-un, the young ruler of North Korea, may be even more ruthless and erratic than his despotic father, Kim Jong-il, and grandfather, Kim Il-sung. Yet the almost 65-year U.S.-led effort to isolate this regime has failed—as also has the 55-year attempt to do the same with the Castro brothers in Cuba. In both cases, isn’t it time to try alternatives to these “isolationist” policies?

The disclosures by Edward Snowden showed that the U.S. intelligence community has almost no information on the secretive North Korean regime. Yet it is commonly believed that North Korea has enriched enough nuclear fuel to create several rudimentary atomic bombs—the hardest step in making such devices. Thus, for some time now, the “isolationist” policy of the international community toward the regime is out of date. It is one thing to attempt to strangle economically a country that may be trying to get a nuclear weapon, such as Iran, to make it desist from the attempt and another to try to do so with the likely already nuclear North Korea. An argument can be made for continuing “instrumental” bans on exports of equipment and technology that could be used by the North Koreans to make more nuclear bombs, but punitive general sanctions designed to strangle the economy of a nuclear weapons state may be counterproductive. The decrepit communist economy of North Korea has little that the world wants to buy; trying to snuff out any limited exports with general economic sanctions merely makes it more likely that the North Koreans will try to peddle its nuclear bomb technology around the world to earn scarce foreign currency.

Despite North Korea’s poor human rights record and because attempts to strangle the country’s economy have just made it more unruly over time, perhaps the U.S.-led international community should follow mother’s old saying that, “you get more with sugar than vinegar.” Vinegar has left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and has predictably made matters worse.

Surprisingly, leading the way to a new policy toward North Korea is an American private citizen: basketball hall-of-famer Dennis Rodman. Much berated by ruthless news reporters, such as George Stephanopoulos and Chris Cuomo, who think they had an easy mark, Rodman instinctively knows what they don’t: people need to talk to dictators, even ruthless human rights abusers like Kim Jong-un. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger actually made nice with Mao Zedong, who probably killed more people than any other despot in world history and who makes Kim Jong-un and his family look like pikers. But you say, they were from the U.S. government and Rodman is a private citizen. True, but international companies, such as Coca Cola and Exxon, regularly make money in and for countries with poor human rights records. Also, Rodman’s freedom to travel to a country that his government hates should let the citizens of North Korea know that people have it better elsewhere.

In any case, the U.S. government has severely botched policy toward North Korea over a 65-year period, and Rodman can do no worse. In fact, his visits offer new intelligence that is very hard to get on the Hermit Kingdom and also offer a private back channel, which could be used by the U.S. government during a crisis or to change U.S. policy for the better.

In addition, international policy has not always been consistent; sometimes after misbehaving, North Korea has been rewarded with more humanitarian aid. This has got to stop, because it merely encourages further North Korean misbehavior. Instead, the United States and the international community should offer to gradually drop general, punitive economic sanctions if South Korea stops aggressive provocations against South Korea.

As for the North Korean nuclear threat, it has been overstated. Despite the fact that North Korea may have made a few crude “Wile E. Coyote” nuclear weapons, it still doesn’t have a reliable long-range missile to deliver them as far as the continental United States. Even if the North Koreans did eventually test and deploy such missiles, they would likely be deterred from attacking the United States with them by the world’s most capable nuclear arsenal consisting of thousands of warheads. The autocratic and self-absorbed Kim Jong-un’s primary goal is to stay in power; that would be impossible in an incinerated North Korea. Thus, a more realistic assessment of the North Korean nuclear threat should allow a relaxing of tensions.

So although Rodman has been regularly pilloried in the U.S. and international media and has not fully articulated a policy of accepting a nuclear North Korea and giving it incentives to integrate into the community of nations, the United States and international community might want to do just that by first taking advantage of his attempt to talk to even those the U.S. government despises.

This article appeared at The Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.

The article North Korea Abuses Human Rights: Tell Us Something We Don’t Already Know – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By SAAG

By Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi

China, under the new leadership and also in the prevailing scenario of post-Cold War multi-polar world, has clearly decided to continue its hitherto aggressive and expansionist foreign policy not only all around its territory including maritime claims and air space security but also towards far-flung areas in Far east, Africa besides Southeast and South Asia including Indian Ocean. Obviously, the real aim is not confined to maintaining only its regional predominance in the East but, beyond that, to replace the US as a lone global hegemon.

With the recent change in the erstwhile leadership in China, the new incumbent, President Xi Jinping has elucidated his vision as the “China Dream”, which sets out a new package of reforms on the anvil with a view to ensure economic progress matching with its rising population and their so rising aspirations and expectations, besides enlarging its sphere of influence not only in its vicinity but also in the far flung areas of the world including Far east, Africa, Southeast and South Asia besides Indian Ocean.

The new leader has made it clear in no ambiguous terms that the world is left with no option but to deal with China’s ever escalating imperialistic-militaristic aggressions and assertions in future which it has already shown with respect to its extended claims in South China Sea and also by setting up its Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the recent past, which overlaps the part of the territory claimed by Japan and South Korea. Obviously, all these are the clear manifestation of China’s all-out effort to maintain not only its regional predominance in the Asia-Pacific zone but also to achieve a big leap forward so as to be recognised as a dominant and responsible player in international relations against its long held desire to proceed towards assuming the role of a global hegemon next only to the U.S. though replacing the U.S. must be its ultimate goal, as it has not yet overcome from its Middle Kingdom complex of the yore.

The new leader has expounded his Dream for the people of China and above all for the Communist Party of China and the People’s Liberation Army. As a matter of fact there are no illusions in the immediate neighbourhood of China as to where the Dream is leading to. In the projected model for its growth, it is clear that the one adopted by the People’s Republic of China corresponds to the Aggressive-Dynamic Expansion Model. In fact, China now sees the post-Cold War multi-polarity in the world as given, calling these developments along with on-going process of economic liberalisation & globalisation as ‘irreversible’.

What is very surprising and also perplexing here is the fact that China has declared itself to be essential to the peace, security, stability, and prosperity of the international system. This promulgation by China, though ostensibly for good, is particularly challenging and also threatening to the sole hyper power in the world as if the future course of the world will be markedly influenced by it, if not to be decided. With the suspicion and counter moves against China increasing, the current security challenges are being realised as worrisome to the entire world, with the major powers increasing their strategic investment and making the realignment of their strategies and also the US reinforcing its military alliances in the Asia-Pacific region.

This realisation has prompted the Chinese leadership to accelerate its economic, political and security co-operation with the developing countries all over the world. Apart from security threats, surge in sophisticated military technology among major powers are driving China’s own desire to revolutionise its military. The Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) was explored in 2000 and 2002 white papers, where it showcased it as a security reality. From 2004 onwards, it draws on China’s own foray in to RMA and acquisition of high-tech weaponry and systems. Hence, China regularly highlights the new security concept in managing relations among states.

Thus, the Chinese Dream as it unfolds in conjunction with the latest White Paper on Defence make China’s neighbours even more wary. Even if the leadership were to change direction and profess peace with neighbours, the latter must not lower their guard. The white paper clearly spells out the missions of the PLA. National resurgence in any country that treads on the aspirations of its neighbours will always remain a matter of concern for the smaller countries of the region and leave them with no choice but to form defensive alliances for their own security. China should take note that besides India, Japan too has made overtures to Russia on realising that the US commitment or even capability might decline in times to come. Tokyo and Moscow are exploring the possibility of settling their territorial dispute. The world is aware of the decline in the American power.

However, one must keep in mind that China’s halcyon days of unprecedented double-digit growth are also over and even and even high single-digit growth might not continue for long. By extension this would have a corresponding effect on the defence budget and it would be difficult to sustain the present rate of military spending. But, despite these shortcomings, the pivot for the collective project of stabilising and strengthening the Asian Century in the present times will be China in every case because of its large and most populous geographical area and also due to its all-round and amazing progress and, consequent, development in all areas of national growth, stability and security.

As a predominant regional super-power and a dominant major power in the world, it can easily shun the stigma of Middle Kingdom complex. Its neighbours and also the whole world, once assured of China’s peaceful rise, would not begrudge its role as an important regional power of the East and also as a dominant and responsible national actor in the world which may be a prelude to its acquiring the global hegemon status, most likely, by the middle of the 21st century.

(Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi, Associate Professor, Political Science, M. D. P. G. College, Pratapgarh (UP). The views expressed are his own)

The article China In The Multipolar World – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By SAAG

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

China’s impulsiveness to launch a militarily flawed massive invasion of Vietnam in1979 was impelled by a greater Chinese geopolitical blueprint of checkmating the perceived former Soviet Union’s strategic intrusiveness in South East Asia courtesy Vietnam, and also thereby ingratiating itself geopolitically with the United States that China was available to play the role of a quasi-strategic ally of the United States in the region to counterbalance the former Soviet Union.

The latter stands substantiated by the fact that Deng Xiao Peng who headed China then visited Washington in January 1979 and briefed US President Carter about China’s plans to nip in the bud the emergence of a “Cuba of the East”. Reportedly, the United States did not raise any objections to the Chinese plan of a massive invasion of Vietnam, logically too, when placed in the context of the United States being forced into an inglorious military exit from Vietnam in 1974 after its prolonged military intervention and occupation.

Two major developments concerning Vietnam occurred in 1978 which irked China considerably and China perceived them as Vietnamese strategic provocations aimed at China. The first was the signing of a Mutual Treaty of Friendship between the Former Soviet Union and Vietnam and the second was Vietnam’s military intervention in Cambodia to contain the genocide underway there by the Chinese-backed regime.

The major Chinese military aim in launching the massive military invasion in 1979 was to force Vietnam to withdraw Vietnamese military formations from Cambodia to stem the Chinese invasion of Vietnam. Nothing of that sort happened as Vietnam employed its battle-hardened Border Guards and Local Militias only to combat the Chinese invasion and did not divert any of the Vietnam Army Regular Divisions from Cambodia. In fact despite the Chinese invasion, Vietnam continued to maintain its regular army forces in Cambodia for another ten years. Vietnam thereby negated China’s larger strategic aims.

Consequently, in 1979, China embarked on a massive invasion of Vietnam by Chinese Army formations numbering over 200,000 supported by 200 tanks and with savage artillery bombardments which lasted for 29 days from February 17 to March 16 1979.  Notably China stood checkmated by Vietnam and repulsed by use of only Vietnamese Border Troops and Local Militias. That Chinese Divisions were soon forced into retreat from Vietnamese territory and thereby stood exposed at that time the serious limitations in China’s military to strategize and execute large scale military operations.

China’s invasion of Vietnam involved massive major ‘human wave’ attacks at 26 points besides smaller actions across a front of 900 kilometres and in the first phase from February 17-25 1979 managed to intrude 20 kilometres deep into Vietnamese territory capturing some small border towns. This was made possible by the element of major surprise as Vietnam never expected that China as a fraternal Communist country would attack a smaller Communist country.

Such was the fierce response of Vietnam to the Chinese invasion that Chinese Army suffered very heavy casualties involving over 20,000dead and an equal number wounded in a war that lasted barely four weeks. The 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam involved some of the bloodiest fighting suffered by China after the Korean War.

Vietnamese forces of Border Guards and Local Militias fought with Vietnamese historical and traditional tenacity to defend the sovereignty and integrity of Vietnam and they too suffered nearly 20,000 dead and over 100,000 civilian casualties. But what mattered was that Vietnam in its valorous military traditions which had earlier forced the French retreat from Vietnam and later the inglorious United States military exit from Vietnam had in 1979 imposed a similar retreat of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam with superior manpower and overwhelming firepower.

Coverage of this Chinese invasion of Vietnam received widespread international media attention and the international community was shocked by China’s propensity to resort to war and invasion without provocation merely to achieve its geopolitical ends unmindful of the human costs of war. China’s propensity to indulge in armed conflict to impose its will on its adversaries continues to be manifested even more than three decades thereafter as visible in China’s current escalation of conflict in the South China Sea against Vietnam and the Philippines and against Japan in the East China Sea.

But the wider international media coverage focussed on how Vietnam hardly recovered from the ravages of the decade-long United States military campaigns in Vietnam could manage to checkmate the Chinese massive invasion of Vietnam with limited military resources and within three weeks forced the Chinese Army to withdraw from Vietnam. Noted by military strategists internationally was the fact that all this was achieved by Vietnam by employment of Border Guards and Local Militias and without committing Regular Army Divisions.

Such was the impact that India sent an Indian Army Study Team to Vietnam in 1979 to gain first-hand experience of the military operational techniques and tactics used by Vietnam to repel the Chinese invasion.

China shirked to publicly examine the military lessons that emerged from this ill-fated Chinese invasion and has done so till date. I could find only one instance lately where a Chinese commentator has come out with an unofficial analysis on this Chinese invasion.

In the present geopolitical context in the Asia Pacific some lessons/ observations that need to be made are as follows:

• China’s propensity to resort to armed conflict/invasion to impose its will or solutions has not waned even after over three decades since 1979. It stands currently manifested in Chinese escalation of the South China Sea and East China Sea conflicts and resort to dangerous military brinkmanship.
• With China in an ascendant trajectory of military expansion and modernisation, China’s propensity for strategic irresponsible actions in the Asia Pacific is likely to be enhanced and thereby endangering Asian security and world peace, that much more.
• United States like in 1974 can be expected now also to exhibit its propensity to be permissive of China’s destabilising actions in the Asia Pacific as long as China is expedient to serve America’s larger geopolitical games.
• Vietnam therefore would be well advised to buttress its defence postures and its war preparedness to meet any emerging threats from China as in the South China Sea.

Signing off, finally, it needs to be stated that strategists from any part of the world would concede that Vietnam’s repelling the massive Chinese invasion in early 1979 and inflicting 20,000 dead on the invading Chinese Army in furious battles within a month with limited military means, surely needs to be counted as an epochal military saga.

The article Vietnam’s Epochal Saga Of Beating Back Massive Chinese Invasion 1979 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Patrick J Buchanan

“Religious Right Cheers a Bill Allowing Refusal to Serve Gays.”

Thus did the New York Times’ headline, leaving no doubt as to who the black hats are, describe the proposed Arizona law to permit businesses, on religious grounds, to deny service to same-sex couples.

Examples of intolerance provided by the Times:

“In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.”

The question Gov. Jan Brewer faces?

Should Christians, Muslims, Mormons who refuse, on religious grounds, to serve same-sex couples — that photographer, that florist, that baker, for example — be treated as criminals?

Or should Arizona leave them alone?

“Religious freedom,” said Daniel Mach of the ACLU to the Times, is “not a blank check to … impose our faith on our neighbors.”

True. But who is imposing whose beliefs here?

The baker who says he’s not making your wedding cake? Or those who want Arizona law to declare that either he provides that wedding cake and those flowers for that same-sex ceremony, or we see to it that he is arrested, prosecuted and put out of business?

Who is imposing his views and values here?

What we are seeing in Arizona in microcosm is what we have witnessed in America for half a century: the growing intolerance of those who preach tolerance and the corruption of the concept of civil rights.

We have seen the progression before.

In 1954, the Supreme Court declared that segregation in public schools was wrong and every black child must be allowed to attend his or her neighborhood school. By 1968, the court was demanding that white children be forcibly bussed across entire cities to insure an arbitrary racial balance.

Under the civil rights acts of the 1960s, businesses were told that in hiring, promotion, pay, and benefits, black and white, men and women must be treated alike. Equality of opportunity.

But, soon, that was no longer enough. We needed equality of result.

Corporations were ordered to maintain extensive records of the race, gender, ethnicity and sexual preferences of their entire work force to prove they were not guilty of discrimination.

And if your work force is insufficiently diverse today, you are a citizen under suspicion in a country we used to call the Land of the Free.

Consider how far we have come.

Virtually all decisions to hire, fire, promote or punish employees, to oversee the sale and rental of housing, to ensure that all minorities have access to all restaurants, hotels and motels, are under the jurisdiction of these minions who are right out of Orwell’s “1984.”

Scores of thousands of bureaucrats — academic, corporate, government — are on watch, overseeing our economy, patrolling our society, monitoring our behavior.

A radical idea: Suppose we repealed the civil rights laws and fired all the bureaucrats enforcing these laws.

Does anyone think hotels, motels and restaurants across Dixie, from D.C. to Texas, would stop serving black customers? Does anyone think there would again be signs sprouting up reading “whites” and “colored” on drinking foundations and restrooms?

Does anyone think restrictive covenants against Jews would be rewritten into contracts on houses? Does anything think that bars and hotels would stop serving blacks and Hispanics?

In his indictment of George III, Jefferson wrote of the king: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Is that not what we have today in spades?

Why do we need this vast army of bureaucrats?

They exist to validate the slander that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic country which would revert to massive discrimination were it not for heroic progressives standing guard.

And, indeed, some bigots might revert to type. But so what?

Cannot a free people deal with social misconduct with social sanctions?

And isn’t this what freedom is all about? The freedom of others to say things we disagree with, to publish ideas we disbelieve in, even to engage in behavior we dislike?

As for the Christians of Arizona and same-sex unions in Arizona, if they don’t like each other, can they not just avoid each other? After all, it’s a big state.

Why will we not see the lapsing or repeal of civil rights laws whose work is done? That would mean cracking the rice bowls of hundreds of thousands of diversicrats who would then have to apply for jobs from folks they have spent their lives harassing.

Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yet, somehow, Mississippi still has more black elected officials than any other state.

If the conditions that called for the laws of the 1960s have ceased to exist, why do those laws still exist?

The article Patrick Buchanan: How Freedom Dies – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By William Donohue

Tonight PBS presents  the”Frontline” 90 minute presentation, “Secrets of the Vatican”:

“Secrets of the Vatican” marks the 48th time PBS has addressed sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Though this problem is practically non-existent in the Catholic community these days, and is rampant in the public schools, as well as in the Orthodox Jewish community, PBS has devoted a combined total of ZERO episodes on both.

All the contrived melodrama is there: ominous dark images; dramatic music; a deep voice-over; bleak hallways; shadowy figures locking doors as a boy enters the room; the words “Power,” “Money,” and “Sex” flashing about, etc. The predictable villain: Pope Benedict XVI. Ironically, he did more than anyone to check this problem, but facts don’t matter when Jason Berry is involved.

A dissident Catholic, Berry is a co-producer of this show; he was also featured in Alex Gibney’s film, “Mea Maxima Culpa.” Indeed, tonight’s hit job is nothing more than a retread of Gibney’s propaganda: a New Orleans reporter who previewed it say s, “this film reminded me of ‘Mea Maxima Culpa.’” These guys can’t go to the sewer too often.

Catholic bashers love to focus on “persecuted” gays, without, of course, holding them responsible for anything. We are told how easy it is to meet a gay priest in Rome, “and then at the altar the following Sunday.” Then we meet a promiscuous gay priest who says the Church’s teachings on homosexuality are “like a knife in your heart.” No doubt some alcoholic priests find the Church’s teachings on alcohol consumption difficult as well, but few would demand that the teachings must change.

None of these people at PBS give a hoot about the sexual abuse of minors, for if they did, they would cover those communities where it is thriving. No, their goal is to discredit the moral voice of Catholicism.

Contact Frontline Press Person, Patrice Taddonio: Patrice_taddonio@wgbh.org

The article PBS’ 48th Hit On Catholic Church – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Said Temsamani

On February 24 King Mohammed VI’s office issued the following statement :”His Majesty King Mohammed VI received on Wednesday a telephone call from French President François Hollande.”

“In light of the clarifications provided in this regard, the two leaders agreed to continue contacts in the coming days at the level of the two governments, and work in the spirit of exceptional relations that bind Morocco and France,” the statement noted.

Therefore this telephone conversation between President Francois Hollande and King Mohammed VI, put an end to the diplomatic row between the two countries. “The president wanted to send a message of confidence and friendship to Morocco,” a French diplomatic source said after Monday’s telephone call. “The misunderstandings have been cleared up.”

The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs initially played down the police action over the lawsuits as “regrettable”, but President Hollande stepped in personally after Morocco postponed a planned trip by his special envoy for the climate Nicola Hullot.

The regrettable incident between the two strong allies was caused by media reports of comments by Spanish actor Javier Bardem, an activist on Western Sahara. The French daily Le Monde quoted Bardem saying in a news conference in Paris on February 17 that a French ambassador had told him that “Morocco was a mistress with whom we sleep every night even if we aren’t especially in love with her, but that we must defend. In other words, we turn a blind eye.”

A foreign ministry official denied the ambassador made the remarks, but the report outraged Rabat.

Morocco also reacted furiously to the announcement last Thursday of two lawsuits filed by an NGO against Abdellatif Hammouchi, the head of its domestic intelligence agency (DGST).

Hollande called the King, who is currently touring West Africa, to reassure him of France’s “constant friendship,” and “dispel the misunderstandings,” the French presidency said on Tuesday. He also underlined his desire to “strengthen the partnership between the two countries.”

Last Friday, Morocco summoned the French ambassador to reject the torture allegations and vigorously protest the lawsuits,France’s while describing the alleged comments by France’s diplomat as “scandalous and unacceptable.”

Morocco’s ambassador to France, Chakib Benmoussa, also held a meeting on Monday with French officials at the foreign ministry in Paris about the issue. The minister said there were “successive developments.”

Morocco’s “strong and quick reaction” was a sign that the kingdom will not tolerate “tampering with its dignity” by an ally. France is unlikely to jeopardize its ties with Morocco.

“It is a serious and unprecedented incident regarding the relationship between the two countries which could affect the climate of confidence and mutual respect between Morocco and France,” Morocco’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

France and Morocco enjoy powerful and historical relations and similar incidents could never jeopardize them. The legitimate question now is whose interest in the current geopolitical context to create such diplomatic spat between two strong allies?

The article Diplomatic Row Between Morocco And France Is Over‏ – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Democratic Voice of Burma

Regional orders issued in Burma’s western Arakan State amount to persecution, one of the highest offences in international law, says Southeast Asia-based NGO Fortify Rights.

A report entitled “Policies of Persecution: Ending Abusive State Policies Against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar”, released by Fortify on Tuesday, implicates authorities in crimes against humanity by virtue of explicit targeting of Rohingya Muslims in policies restricting marriage, childbirth rights and movement.

“The policies explained in this report appear to be designed to make life so intolerable for Rohingya that they will leave the country, and indeed many have,” reads the executive summary.

The 79-page report is based on 12 leaked documents, eight of which were made public for the first time in the publication. Four remain undisclosed for security reasons, said Fortify.

Three regional orders disclosed in the report detail restrictions on the rights of Muslims to marry, reproduce and reside, establishing strongly prohibitive registration and approval processes. Addenda to the orders detail and intensify restrictions, explicating punishments for offences. Some carry prison sentences of up to ten years.

The regional orders exposed in the report date from 1993 – 2008, and are accompanied by five addenda issued prior to 2007.

One of the orders outlines restrictions on childbirth. While the order itself does not specify a numerical limit to the number of children that a Muslim woman can have, the report suggests that, ““Regional Order 1/2005” appears to lay the foundation for the two-child policy.”

A controversial two-child policy has reportedly been imposed on Rohingya women for nearly a decade, which Fortify suggests has led to illegal abortion and maternal deaths.

Fortify Rights is a non-governmental organisation providing technical support to human rights defenders. Board members include UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights to Burma, Tomás Ojea Quintana, and Phil Robertson, the Asia Director for Human Rights Watch.

The group issued recommendations to the government of Burma including: the abolition of all regional orders restricting the lives of Muslims in Arakan State; support for an international investigation into the events in Arakan State from 2012 to present; amendment of a 1982 citizenship law that renders the Rohingya stateless; and ensuring public access to laws and policy, which must meet international standards.

At least 200,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled their homes since June 2012, when riots erupted in northern Arakan State that left entire villages razed to the ground and triggered a rash of similar episodes spanning Arakan State and eventually spilling over into central Burma. An estimated 138,000 Muslims (which includes Rohingya and other ethnic minorities affected, such as Kaman Muslims) are currently displaced within Burma, living in isolated and impoverished camps which they are not allowed to leave.

The article Rohingya Crisis: Burma Govt Implicated In ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By CNA

Pope Francis sent a video message to a gathering of U.S. Pentecostal leaders, voicing his “yearning” that separation between Catholics and other Christians may end.

“We have a lot of cultural riches and religious riches. And we have diverse traditions,” he said. “But we have to encounter one another as brothers.”

“Let’s give each other a spiritual embrace and let God complete the work that He has begun,” he said, adding that “the miracle of unity has begun.”

The Pope quoted a character from Alessandro Manzoni’s novel “The Betrothed,” who says “I’ve never seen God begin a miracle without Him finishing it well.”

“He will complete this miracle of unity,” the Pope emphasized.

Pope Francis’ message was delivered to a meeting of the Fort Worth, Texas-based Kenneth Copeland Ministries by Pentecostal Bishop Tony Palmer, who had recorded it on an iPhone in a Jan. 14 meeting. Palmer knew the Pope from his time in Argentina when the pontiff was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The video was later uploaded to YouTube.

The Pope described Palmer as “my brother,” saying the two have been “friends for years.”

His message began in English but then switched to Italian, telling his audience he would speak “heartfully” about “the language of the heart.”

This language has “a simple grammar” with two rules: “Love God above all, and love the other, because he is your brother and sister.”

“I am speaking to you as a brother… with joy and yearning,” the Pope continued.

“It gives me joy that you have come together to worship Jesus Christ the only Lord and to pray to the Father and to receive the Spirit,” he said. “This brings me joy because we can see that God is working all over the world.”

“We are kind of… permit me to say, separated,” the Pope lamented.

“It’s sin that has separated us, all our sins, the misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame?”

“We all share the blame,” he said. “We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord.”

He voiced his yearning that this separation ends and that communion be restored.

“Let us allow our yearning to grow. Because this will propel us to find each other, to embrace one another. And together to worship Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History.”

At one point, the Pope referenced the Old Testament story of Joseph, saying Christians must “cry together” as Joseph did with his brothers.

“These tears will unite us. The tears of Love.”

He asked the Pentecostals for their prayers and promised to pray for them.

“I ask you to bless me, and I bless you. From brother to brother, I embrace you. Thank you”

At the end of Pope Francis’ message, Pentecostal minister Kenneth Copeland encouraged the audience to respond to the Pope’s words.

“Come on, the man asked us to pray for him,” he said with enthusiasm.

“Oh Father…we answer his request,” Copeland prayed. “And since we know not how to pray for him as we ought other than to agree with him in his quest and his heart for the unity of the body of Christ… we come together in the unity of our faith, Halleluiah!”

He said the congregation prayed for the Pope “in the Spirit” and received “words that are not our own.”

Copeland and the congregation then began to speak in tongues.

Before the video, Bishop Palmer spoke of his relationship with the Catholic Church and with Pope Francis. He said he considered Pope Francis one of his three “spiritual fathers.” The two studied together and met often.

He recounted that Pope Francis called him just after Christmas 2013 and invited him to Rome.

“I said to him, ‘Pope Francis, I can’t believe that you’re phoning me. I don’t know how to react to you,” Palmer told the congregation. “I said, ‘You’re the Pope of the Universal Church… 1.2 billion people. And I’m just an everyday clergyman doing his bit for the kingdom.”

However, the Pope assured him, “We are brothers. Nothing will change our friendship.”

The two met Jan. 14 and “made a covenant to work for unity for the Church.”

Though Palmer was eager to have Pope Francis make a video, he did not voice the suggestion. Rather, the Pope suggested it.

“This is history that we’ve got a Pope that recognizes us as brothers and sisters, speaks to us as brothers and sisters, and has sent us a message,” Palmer said.

The Pentecostal bishop also discussed the need for Christian unity.

“I’ve come to understand that diversity is divine. It is division that is diabolic,” he said, saying Christian unity is “the basis of our credibility.”

Bishop Palmer cited the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, saying it “brought an end to the protest” of the Protestant Reformation.

He called on Protestant Evangelical leaders to sign the agreement, also reciting Jesus’ prayer that his disciples “may be one.”

The article ‘We Are Brothers,’ Pope Stresses In Message To Pentecostals appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By RT

Was the National Security Agency exploiting two just-discovered security flaws to hack into the iPhones and Apple computers of certain targets? Some skeptics are saying there is cause to be concerned about recent coincidences regarding the NSA and Apple.

Within hours of one another over the weekend, Apple acknowledged that it had discovered critical vulnerabilities in both its iOS and OSX operating systems that, if exploited correctly, would put thought-to-be-secure communications into the hands of skilled hackers.

“An attacker with a privileged network position may capture or modify data in sessions protected by SSL/TLS,” the company announced.

Apple has since taken steps to supposedly patch up the flaw that affected mobile devices running its iOS operating system, such as iPhones, but has yet to unveil any fix for the OSX used by desktop and laptop computers. As experts investigated the issue through the weekend, though, many couldn’t help but consider the likelihood — no matter how modicum — that the United States’ secretive spy agency exploited those security flaws to conduct surveillance on targets.

On Saturday, Apple enthusiast and blogger John Gruber noted on his personal website that information contained within internal NSA documents leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden last year coincide closely with the release of the affected mobile operating system, iOS 6.

According to a NSA slideshow leaked by Mr. Snowden last June, the US government has since 2007 relied on a program named PRISM that enables the agency to collect data “directly from the servers” of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and others. The most recent addition to that list, however, was Apple, which the NSA said it was only able to exploit using PRISM since October 2012.

The affected operating system — iOS 6.0 — was released days earlier on September 24, 2012.

These facts, Gruber blogged, “prove nothing” and are “purely circumstantial.” Nevertheless, he wrote, “the shoe fits.”

With the iOS vulnerability being blamed on a single line of erroneous code, Gruber considered a number of possibilities to explain how that happened.

“Conspiratorially, one could suppose the NSA planted the bug, through an employee mole, perhaps. Innocuously, the Occam’s Razor explanation would be that this was an inadvertent error on the part of an Apple engineer,” he wrote.

“Once the bug was in place, the NSA wouldn’t even have needed to find it by manually reading the source code. All they would need are automated tests using spoofed certificates that they run against each new release of every OS. Apple releases iOS, the NSA’s automated spoofed certificate testing finds the vulnerability, and boom, Apple gets ‘added’ to PRISM.”

Gruber said he sees five possible scenarios, or “levels of paranoia,” as he put it:

Nothing. The NSA was not aware of this vulnerability.
The NSA knew about it, but never exploited it.
The NSA knew about it, and exploited it.
NSA itself planted it surreptitiously.
Apple, complicit with the NSA, added it.

Of course, Guber added, there is always the possibility that “this is all a coincidence.” He certainly wasn’t the only one to consider it, though.

“Again, all of this is circumstantial and speculative, and Apple has come out numerous times vehemently denying its involvement in any NSA program,” iDownloadblog’s Cody Lee wrote on Monday. “But the timing is rather odd, and it makes you wonder how such a serious bug went undiscovered for over a year.”

Indeed, Apple has since the start of the Snowden leaks adamantly fended off allegations concerning a possible collusion with the NSA. On December 31, 2013, the company even issued a statement insisting “Apple has never worked with the NSA to create a backdoor in any of our products, including iPhone.”

“We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them,” Apple said then — nearly two months after acknowledging the major security vulnerability discovered last week.

At the time, though, Apple was responding to another serious allegation that, if correct, gives much more credence to the latest accusations. The Dec. 31 statement was sent hours after security researcher Jacob Appelbaum presented previously unpublished NSA slides at a hacking conference in Germany, including some where the spy agency boasted about being able to infiltrate any iPhone owned by a targeted person.

The NSA, Appelbaum said, “literally claim that any time they target an iOS device, that it will succeed for implantation.”

“Either they have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products — meaning they are hoarding information about critical systems American companies product and sabotaging them — or Apple sabotages it themselves.”

Last year, RT reported that the NSA entered into a contract in 2012 with VUPEN, a French security company that sells so-called 0-day exploits to governments and agencies so that vulnerabilities and flaws can be abused before the affected product’s owner is even made aware. It’s likely just another major coincidence that fits the timeframe eerily well, but that contract was signed only days before iOS 6 was released — and, coincidentally, days before the NSA boasted about being able to access Apple communications through its PRISM program.

The article Apple Security Flaw Could Be Backdoor For NSA appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By JTW

By Habibe Ozdal

The future of Ukraine, which has been experiencing profound developments since November, will be determined by the effects of events that happened during past few days. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, 77 people died over only two days in Kiev, while opposition groups estimate the number of dead around 100 people. Hundreds of people were also wounded due to the fact that the initially peaceful demonstrators eventually resorted to violence, which President Yanukovych responded by attempting to empty out “Maidan” Square. Mysteries still abound the police’s consequent use of force and, ultimately, the emergence of snipers. Despite the fact that during the peak hours of the protests -when the situation deteriorated severely- the negotiations between Yanukovych and the opposition leaders resulted in a ceasefire, clashes continued because some radical groups among the opposition did not recognize the decision.

It seemed that a critical step had finally been taken when Yanukovych and three opposition leaders reached an agreement on February. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the leader of Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) Party; Vitaly Klitschko, the leader of UDAR (Strike) Party; and Oleg Tyahnybok, the leader of Svoboda (Freedom) Party represented the Ukrainian opposition which had been negotiating since November 21st. Yet, as there were various other parties and groups in the “Maidan” Square, the extent to which the three leaders could command the diverse crowds in the streets was an issue of concern.

What was the deal?

According to the agreement reached by the parties and mediated by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Poland, and Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin -who is the only figure from Russia whom the Ukrainians would allow at the negotiating table- the 2004 Constitution was to be restored within 48 hours. Yanukovych was elected in 2010 and had installed a semi-presidential system by reinforcing the authority of the president through legal amendments. The amendments in question bestowed the president with extravagant authority -including, among others, the power to appoint or dismiss the prime minister and the Cabinet of Ministers- and brought about criticism of Yanukovych’s increasingly authoritarian practices.

The agreement signed on February 21st outlined a ten-day formation period for a united government that included opposition leaders. The agreement also stipulated that by September 2014 the constitution would be reformed to balance the authority of the government with that of the legislature. Moreover, the presidential election that was initially planned to be held in March 2015 was to be rescheduled to an earlier date within 2014. All who had been arrested since November 2013 due to the ongoing protests were going to be pardoned and released unconditionally. In addition, the government, the opposition, and the European Council were to jointly investigate acts of violence- acts which resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of wounded.

The agreement, a product of efforts aimed at resolving the problem through dialogue despite the ongoing violence, was approved by an overwhelming majority in the parliament. Furthermore, the parliament removed Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaliy Zakharchenko from duty.

Zakharenko was held responsible for the increase in casualties, as he authorized the police force to intervene. One of the most striking results of the public upheaval in Ukraine was that the Ukrainian parliament decriminalized an act for which former PM Yulia Tymoshenko was charged and jailed. This decision by the Ukrainian parliament came during the evening hours of February 21st. It was made in order to pave the way for Tymoshenko’s ultimate release on February 22nd. This event, in turn, will have a significant effect on the upcoming early presidential elections.

Tymoshenko was charged with exceeding her prime ministerial authority and damaging the country’s economy by signing a natural gas agreement with Russia in 2009. Tymoshenko, who was the leader of the opposition at the time of her arrest in 2011, was sentenced to seven years in prison.

On top of this sentence was an extra three years period during which she would be banned from holding any official position -thereby preventing her from participating in the parliamentary elections of 2012 and 2017, and the presidential elections of 2015 and 2020. Tymoshenko is now returning to the political stage of Ukraine as the most prominent politician.

Clashes ended, uncertainty continues

Yanukovych wasn’t able to preserve his position in Ukraine’s political stage despite meeting all the demands in the agreement reached with the opposition. Immediately after the 2004 constitution was restored, the parliament dismissed President Yanukovych while former PM Tymoshenko was freed from custody. Another crucial decision made by the parliament was to abolish Russian as an official language in Ukraine.

Maidan Square was not evacuated even after the agreement was signed. What is more, opposition forces seized the whole city of Kiev according to the statements of dissidents. The presidential residence of Yanukovych was captured as well. Yanukovych was compelled to abandon Kiev and move to the eastern city of Kharkiv. Yanukovych said in a statement to a local TV station in Kharkiv that he will not resign as the elected president.

Even though the parliament issued a warrant for Yanukovych, charging him with “mass killing”, his whereabouts are a mystery for now. He is last rumored to be in Sevastopol.

While opposition groups claim that they’ve taken over the western half of the country and the capital, Kiev, there are spreading images of Russian flags hoisted in place of Ukrainian flags in Crimea. It is increasingly suggested that if the country divides, Crimea, where ethnic Russians predominate with a 60% majority, would join Russia. All these indicators suggest an uncertain future at the mercy of various dynamics.

From the EU’s perspective, it’s highly unlikely to see its Partnership Agreement signed under the current circumstances, regardless of which party comes to power in Ukraine. In this respect, funds formerly precluded by several preconditions, need to be provided to tackle the Ukrainian economy’s structural problems. Analysts inside the EU who have given some thought to the environment surrounding Ukraine are arguing that the Partnership Agreement needs to include some changes for the Ukrainian considering particular sectors in Ukrainian economy. The Partnership Agreement will be a viable option for Ukraine only if the relevant shortcomings are remedied. Under current circumstances, the EU’s new roadmap can only be a revision of the Partnership Agreement. On the other hand, the time needed to redraft it may not meet expectations considering all the developments of the last 48 hours. Lastly, it was indicated that Ukraine urgently needs $35 billion in economic aid. More troubling news came with Russian Prime Minister Medvedev’s recent announcement suggesting that Russia will soon update prices related to its gas agreement with Ukraine.

Where is Russia in the search for a solution?

The developments in Ukraine needs to be assessed from the Russian perspective as well, as Moscow is an actor that uses all of its economic and political assets in the country to influence the course of events. Russia’s role in the protests ongoing since November have been analyzed in two ways: First, Russia’s influence over Ukrainian politics has been articulated and Yanukovych’s disinclination to sign the Partnership Agreement with the EU has been attributed to Moscow’s pressure. According to the second explanation, the ongoing protests clearly demonstrated that Russia was unable to control Ukraine despite its economic and political clout; the chain of events has produced unfavorable results for Russia. Both analyses are well founded. Moreover Ukraine’s importance for Russia is a widely accepted, well-attested subject. Ukraine is distinct among former Soviet republics in terms of its geopolitical, economic, energy, and security significance. Notwithstanding, since 2010 Russia had been able to increase its influence over Ukrainian politics with the advent of the Yanukovych administration. All these factors explain why Yanukovych did not sign the Partnership Agreement. However, despite Yanukovych and Russia using nearly every asset available to them, the problem has not been resolved as desired; they have not been able to control events as they wished. Even if what has been experienced is not another Orange Revolution, it is a major victory for the opposition.

Immediately after the agreement was signed public statements from Moscow and the Russian media emphasized that fully implementing the conditions set by the agreement will be a challenging task, and that it is too early to claim the crisis has been resolved. Indeed, perhaps the condition that has been satisfied so far is the restoration of the 2004 constitution. The rest will follow quickly easily in Kiev.

While all these events were taking place in Ukraine, there was a deep silence on Russia’s part because of the Sochi Olympics. Putin’s initial instructions following the closing ceremony of the Sochi Olympics on the evening of February 23rd was to recall Mikhail Zurabov, Russia’s ambassador to Ukraine, for consultations “due to the disorder in the country”. Putin can be expected to break his silence with an important move considering Ukraine’s significance to Russia. In fact, even Moscow’s policy of “wait and see” till now can lead to a divided Ukraine and might mean a gain for Russia. That is because if Ukraine is divided, eastern Ukraine, which is rich in mineral resources and harbors industrial complexes, as well as Crimea may join Russia. At the same time, Putin not adopting an aggressive tone may be contrary to expectations but it does not mean Russia is not currently active in Ukraine.

Ultimately, the recently signed agreement has not settled the political crisis that brought Ukraine to the verge of division and created an atmosphere of a civil war. The crisis was only taken to a new dimension. In Ukraine, which is expected to have early elections on May 25th, everything is happening quickly. It will be revealed whether the EU has the will to reconsider its clearly mistaken policies and reformulate a new and inclusive policy, taking account of the details of the Ukrainian economy and the overall context at large. It should be noted that the EU’s role is crucial at this juncture. On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that Russia will continue to be a party to the continuing process. Maybe the most important factor will be the reflection of demographic, linguistic, sectarian and cultural cleavages within Ukrainian society in the upcoming elections -they always play a determining role. In this respect, uncertainty continues to overshadow the country’s future.

Habibe Ozdal, USAK Center for Eurasian Studies

The article Uncertainty Looms Over Ukraine – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By JTW

By Andrew E. Tchie

Where we are today

Some 500 children, most of them under the age of 15, and about 20 pregnant women were among those evacuated from the Old City of Homs, Syria, two weeks ago. The United Nations has appealed to warring factions in Syria’s civil war, asking for an extension in the “humanitarian pause” to allow international agencies to undertake the anxious challenge of evacuating hundreds of civilians from the blockaded Old City of Homs, including terrified and malnourished children, the elderly, sick and injured. The evacuation was supposed to have taken place earlier in the week but because of “logistical difficulties,” the operation was suspended. In hectic scenes the United Nations (UN) convoyed vehicles were seen driving at high speed through the city’s main checkpoint to load up with civilians desperate to leave the city after the 19 months of siege.

Almost half of the estimated 2,500 civilians trapped in Homs left by the end of Monday, according to the UN. “It’s an extremely dangerous operation,” said Jens Laerke, spokesman for the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Geneva, “but this is what the ordinary people of Homs have been living with every single day for the past year and a half.” In November last year, an Oxford Research Group study reported that over 11,000 children had been killed in Syria and several sources claim that since 2011 Syria’s civil conflict has claimed more than 100,000 and forced about six-million people from their homes. Geoffrey Ijumba, who is based in Homs with the UN’s children’s agency, UNICEF, said of the children rescued last week, “They look sad and weak, dehydrated, emaciated anything but healthy.”

More than 2.1-million refugees have already been registered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Syria’s four neighbouring states. Hundreds of thousands more are known to be living outside of the neighbouring states of Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon, without access to international aid and assistance. According to Refugees international (RI), “Syrians have arrived in locations as diverse as Bulgaria, the Maldives, and Thailand.” RI had visited Iraq’s Dohuk and noted that there were around 1,400 people per day entering the city to take refuge. The United Nations predicts the number of refugees from the war could rise to 3.5 million by the end of the year.

Turkey’s brotherly love

International Strategic Research Organisation (USAK) staff visited several refugee camps established along the border cities of Turkey and Syria (Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa, Hatay and Kilis) and conducted an opinion poll with Syrian refugees living in camps. The results were released in a November report by USAK, UN and the Brookings Institution titled “Turkey and Syrian Refugees: The Limits of Hospitality” One of USAK’s research specialists Ms. Sema Karaca told me that “the total number of refugees (camp plus non-camp) in Turkey had reached one million and it seems like the Syrian refugees will not be able to return to Syria in the short or medium term.”

Overall the report stated that a high number of civilians were happy with the conditions of the camps. In Turkey, humanitarian conditions in the seven refugee camps managed by Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) are comparatively better than those in neighbouring countries. But protests have occurred in several of the camps because of unreliable running water and poor sanitation. These conditions have reportedly improved, at least in the Kilis camp in the south of the country.

Iraq: The false promised land

In less than three years, some 200,000 have fled to the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq. The civil war in Syria has forced tens of thousands of people to seek shelter in Iraq. This includes tens of thousands of Iraqis who had previously fled Iraq for protection in Syria, hoping to escape the effects of the 2003 U.S. led invasion. Estimates suggest that this has brought the number of Iraq’s who are deemed to be internally displaced persons (IDPs) at roughly 2.8 million. The refugee camps have become increasingly overcrowded and local communities are overburdened. Many of the Syrian refugees that fled to Kurdish-led Northern Iraq are young refugee men, who are now joining the Kurdish militias that are increasingly locked into battles along the Turkish-Syrian border with Sunni-led Islamic extremists. The concern for Iraq’s government is the free movement of people between eastern Syria and western Iraq.

The vast majority of Iraq’s internally displaced people (IDP’s) continue to live in temporary shelters. The unemployment rate among IDPs remains high, and women, children, and persons without official identification documents are particularly vulnerable. This situation could in some districts lead to human trafficking, exploitation of young children and an increase in slavery. Compounding some of these problems is the rapidly growing number of Syrians who are fleeing to Iraq. As of July 2013, more than 150,000 Syrians were recorded entering Iraq, and the UN Refugee Agency approximates that this figure could nearly double by the end of 2014. However many of the refugee camps in Iraq remain over capacity, even after repeated expansions. They are also underfunded, short-handed and unable to deliver fundamental services, particularly when it comes to registering incoming refugees. Most residents in the Domiz camp are permitted in and out of the camp depending on their situations but the camp provides protection that many refugees cannot obtain outside.

Jordon: An overhelming problem

In July 2012, Jordan opened a large refugee camp, which could host up to 150,000 people, in response to the overwhelming amount of people arriving as they struggled to deliver services to what had been a widely dispersed population. As of July 2013, over 420,000 Syrian refugees had registered in Jordan; the state now houses more than 600,000 Syrian refugees from its neighbouring state. Jordan is not a party to the Refugee Convention. However, the Jordanian government remains willing to working with international agencies inside its borders to address humanitarian crises. However, Jordan has few natural resources, significant unemployment, and depends significantly on foreign aid.

Jordan has been a host country for both Iraqi refugees and Palestinians over the past decades. Jordan’s Palestinian population is commonly thought to include about half of the country’s total population. Nonetheless, there are reports of discrimination and several hundred thousand Palestinians have been forced to live in camps under poor socioeconomic conditions. Iraqi refugees began arriving in Jordan in sizeable figures in 2003 and now the Jordanian government estimates that 450,000 are in the country. In addition, the UNHCR has registered 32,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan, who have fled the conflict.

Lebanon: The forgotton people

By August 2013, the number of Syrians refugees registered or undergoing registration with the UNHCR, in Lebanon stood at over 700,000. Based on the situation in Syria and current arrival trends, it is thought that up to one million Syrian refugees were residing in Lebanon in December 2013. By the end of 2014, the Syrian refugee population could reach 1.5 million. This is in addition to the 450,000 Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA, the UN agency responsible Palestinians in Lebanon. Palestinian refugees represent an estimated ten per cent of the population of Lebanon. Around 53 per cent of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon live in the 12 recognised refugee camps, all of which suffer from serious problems, including poverty, overcrowding, poor housing conditions and lack of infrastructure.

Previously, political instability, security incidents and the effects of the Syrian crisis all negatively affected strong economic growth in Lebanon. Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, although it has signed most human rights treaties relevant to the protection of refugees. Constitutionally, the latter take precedence over domestic law but the courts rarely observe this, and there is no domestic legislation or administrative practice to address the specific needs of refugees and asylum-seekers. The majority of people who are affected by the vagaries of the Lebanese refugee and human rights laws are Syrians fleeing the conflict.

Beyond the Middle East, there are reports that the Algerian Ministry of Interior has estimated that 12,000 Syrians have entered the country, with other estimates as high as 25,000. Even the European Union’s statistical office has reported that an average of 1,000 Syrian asylum seekers per month arrived in Europe in 2013.

Beyond the problem: Where do we go from here?

What emerges from all of this is an image of unnecessary suffering and grief, which will continue if adequate steps are not taken to address the humanitarian crisis that refugees face. Mr Amin Awad, the head of the United Nations’ Refugee Agency in the Middle East, said recently that “The fighting continues, people are getting displaced and we don’t know how long it’s going to take… aside from making sure the humanitarian operations are running, we need to support the host communities and governments”. The issue of IDPs and refugees is not only an issue for Syrians alone; there seems to be an ever-growing issue throughout the Middle Eastern region. The issue is bigger than many in the West might have estimated”.

With The second round of the Geneva II talks ending last Friday, the Syria peace talks in Geneva made little progress and offer little hope to the refugees and IDPs. UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, who took over from former secretary general Kofi Annan in August 2012, lamented after the two sides held face-to-face talks, at the start of the talks he said: “the beginning of this week is as laborious as it was the first week,” and called on the government and the opposition to stop the “nightmare” of the civil war. Brahimi also apologised to the Syrian people after the second round of peace talks in Geneva ended after just 27 minutes and without any progress. Mr Brahimi said a: “key sticking point was the government’s refusal to talk about a transitional governing body.”

Syria now looks set to possibly witness a return to the worst moments of the 1990s. The horrors of the Balkans and central Africa look set to flash in front of our TV screens all over again. This time, though, it appears that the international community, the media and public opinion will turn their heads in shame, as any atrocities committed will be received without any strong feelings of guilt for letting it happen again. Those previous wars sparked global public and political outrage. After international humanitarian intervention suffered from the US’s illegitimate claims surrounding Iraq war, the Security Council’s decision to authorize the use of force in Libya inspired excited cries that responsibility to protect (R2P) had triumphed. It was said that we had a ‘‘new politics of protection”. In his opening address to the General Assembly in the fall of 2011, Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon announced: ‘‘it should be clear to all that [R2P] has arrived.” Yet, when we fast-forward only a few months and shift our gaze away from Libya, we hear equally heated cries that Syria spells the end of R2P: where is this international protection?

After the Security Council’s inability to adopt a resolution, the UN General Assembly demanded that the Syrian government cease violence against civilians and commit to a political process. As Ms’ Tara Van Ho, an international human rights lawyer explains, the UN General Assembly resolution matters very little; it is not binding, and it does not carry the force of law that a UN Security Council resolution would. Van Ho argues that, “the continued failure to act on Syria should be a source of shame for all members of the Security Council, but particularly for the permanent five – Russia, China, the US, UK, and France – who have been entrusted with encouraging and protecting international peace and security. They have done an abysmal job and it is unfortunately the Syrian people who are paying the price for their political impotence.”

What arises from this all is a situation which looks set to continue with no clear solution at hand. Politicians and diplomats for years declared that there would be “no more Srebrenicas” and “no more Rwanda’s.” However the Syrian crisis looks set to turn out this way after all. This raises a dilemma for the international community. The longer the international community and UN agencies continue to assume that shame is sufficient to motivate otherwise unwilling states to support coercive intervention to protect human rights, the longer we will be voicing disappointment in the international community. Especially if shaming is really the only method they have to offer Syrian people.

If a state can inflict so much damage and exercise so much power without feeling the consequences of its actions, what is to stop other dictators from carrying out the same acts? How are we supposed to respond to states that are willing to withstand shaming efforts when it comes to the question of intervention to protect human rights? What appears clear is that the international community, as well as the UN agencies, need to find new methods and approaches to deal the Middle Eastern refugee crisis. Unlike the wars of the 1990’s or even the Iraq war of 2003, the most confusing problem is that there seems to be no outrage like we witnessed in the 1990s. The public is not marching on the streets, nor are they collecting money to help towards this issue that plagues many Middle Eastern countries. And it is the Syrians that suffer from our unashamed apathy and the UN’s impotence.

Andrew Edward Tchie is a PhD student in Government at University of Essex.

The article The Shame Of It All: The Wave Of Refugees Flooding The Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Neville Teller

They love death so much, these Islamist extremists, that they have taken to practicing it on each other. Not content with inducing young people to blow themselves up, or with slaughtering innocent civilians who happen to get in their way, they have turned in on themselves. Like Chicago in the 1920s, rival gangs are scrabbling for supremacy in the lawless free-for-all battleground that is today’s Syria. At least 2,300 rebels and jihadists have been slain in the past month battling each other in that benighted country.

The rebel infighting erupted in early January 2014 between a loose alliance of moderates and Islamists on the one hand, and on the other the violent and ruthless jihadist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly known as ISIS.

ISIS fighters triggered the war-within-the-civil-war by carrying out a string of assassinations of high-profile rebel commanders. Disputes over territory and the division of captured and smuggled weapons added fuel to the flames.

Then, on Sunday February 23, 2014, Abu Khalid al-Suri, senior al-Qaeda operative and one-time confidant of Osama bin Laden, was killed by a suicide bomber. Reuters reported that during fratricidal fighting near Aleppo, five members of ISIS entered the headquarters of Ahrar al-Sham, an Islamist brigade that al-Suri helped set up, and as four of them fought with guards, one ISIS fighter blew himself up. He took al-Suri, and half-a dozen of al-Suri’s colleagues, with him to the paradise and the 72 virgins he had been promised for martyring himself.

According to Western intelligence agencies, Al-Suri worked for Osama bin Laden from at least the 1990s, and had been appointed by current al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as his personal envoy to mediate disputes among followers in the Syrian rebel movement. The group al-Suri helped found, Ahrar al-Sham, is now one of the most powerful factions in Syria, but it is at violent odds with ISIS, which was formally disowned by Al-Qaeda’s top brass in Pakistan earlier in February.

“ISIS is not a branch of al-Qaeda” ran Zawahiri’s statement, posted on jihadist websites, “and we have no organizational relationship with it.” As a result, it added, al-Qaeda is no longer responsible for the “actions and behaviors” of ISIS, which has been fighting a bloody campaign against other rebel groups in Syria while imposing strict Islamic law on the parts of Syria it controls, often executing people it finds to be insufficiently pious.

ISIS is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who envisages carving out his own caliphate stretching across the Levant. Some analysts believe al-Baghdadi caused especial offense to core al-Qaeda by describing himself as “Emir of All Believers,” implying that he was the regional emir, a position that al-Zawahiri appointed al-Suri to in May 2013.
ISIS was immediately blamed by Ahrar al-Sham for al-Suri’s assassination, setting off furious arguments by supporters of each on the social media used obsessively by many jihadist groups in Syria.

Al-Suri’s killing is further evidence that ISIS leader al-Baghdadi has no intention of caving in to al-Qaeda’s top leadership, and means to maintain the gang warfare that is fracturing the jihadist movement – and, incidentally, represents the biggest challenge it has faced since US special forces disposed of bin Laden.

“This is going to make the infighting worse,” says Akram al-Halabi, spokesman for the Islamic Front, a coalition of half-a-dozen Islamist brigades, some which have links with al-Qaeda. He is right.

According to Thomas Joscelyn of the US-based think tank ‘The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’: “The longer al-Baghdadi lasts, the stronger ISIS becomes as a rival to the al-Qaeda-backed groups. This has turned into a full-fledged blood feud.”

ISIS is not having it all its own way, however. Just weeks ago ISIS, which claims tens of thousands of fighters among its ranks, appeared the dominant military force in northern Syria. More recently, though, its attempt to impose the severest form of Sharia in the areas under its control, its public executions, and the unutterable brutality with which its deals with its opponents, have turned opinion against it.

Islam Aloush, spokesman for the Islamic Front, a new more moderate grouping of anti-Assad interests, told CNN that ISIS’s activities had become unacceptable and has generated a backlash. Recently, rebels besieged at least 100 ISIS fighters at a police station used as a base by the group in the key Salheen neighborhood of Aleppo. Elsewhere in the province, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, ISIS surrendered bases and withdrew from towns and villages.

“ISIS cannot withstand the losses they are taking and the numbers now held as prisoner of war,” said Aloush, claiming that his organization, the Islamic Front, far outnumbered ISIS. The Islamic Front boasts an estimated 40,000 fighters, making it probably the single largest rebel command.

In Raqqah, the first provincial capital under rebel control, full-scale fighting resulted in losses for ISIS on February 18. Just a day earlier insurgents freed at least 50 people held in an ISIS detention facility, while further to the west, in the Zawiya Mountain region, rebels executed at least 34 foreigner jihadists from ISIS.

According to CNN all this infighting further complicates matters for international observers such as the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which announced in January that it will cease updating the death toll for the Syrian civil conflict. It can no longer verify the sources of information that led to its last count of at least 100,000 in July 2013 nor, it said, said could it endorse anyone else’s count, including the widely quoted figures from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Their latest tally is more than 130,000 killed in violence in Syria since March 2011.

Rebel infighting – marked, as gang warfare invariably is, by seesawing fortunes – will probably continue, regardless of any outcome to the main Syrian civil conflict. The collapse of central government in Syria will doubtless be resolved before too long, one way or another, but any accommodation would have little bearing on the wider Islamist ambitions of the jihadists who have battened on Syria’s troubles to advance agendas of their own. That seems to be a battle without an end.

The article Gang Warfare In Jihadi-Land – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Observer Research Foundation

By Uma Purushothaman

Close on the heels of the diplomat Devyani Khobragade affair, the US and India seem set to have another dispute, this time on trade issues. Differences over trade have been cropping up in the last few years, with almost 14 disputes at the WTO. The US International Trade Commission has begun a hearing on the impact of India’s trade practices on US business and jobs. Indian officials on their part have refused to meet the USITC officials looking into allegations of unfair trade practices by India.

Differences over trade have been cropping up more and more over the last couple of years. For instance, last year, the Alliance for Free Trade, which represents 14 business groups from almost all sectors of the US economy, had petitioned the administration to raise trade issues during Secretary of State John Kerry’s as well as Vice President Joe Biden’s visits. Earlier, the heads of around 17 industry associations had written to President Barack Obama about India’s alleged unfair trade practices, which they say harm American businesses and jobs.

The most recent case is about the US requesting for consultations at the WTO about some domestic content requirements India has put on its solar industry. By 2022, India aims to produce 20,000 MW of power using solar energy through the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission,, making it the second largest solar market in the world. The US is unhappy that as part of phase II of this project, India has put in the requirement that Indian-manufactured solar cells and modules should be used in the solar equipment instead of imported equipment. This, the US claims, is against WTO rules and will cost the US solar industry ten thousand jobs and about $200-$300 million in exports.This is the second time over the last year that the US has asked for consultations about the solar mission; the first dispute has not been settled yet. If the consultations do not resolve the dispute, the US is entitled to take India to the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Interestingly, the US has gone ahead with this action against India despite requests from environmental activists who said that the US should not act against India on this as it will help India reduce its dependence on non-renewable energy. On its part, India has said that it is investigating reports that the US is supporting American manufacturers of solar panels, also against WTO rules.

Further, there are other issues on which US and India don’t see eye-to-eye. For instance, the main complaint American businessmen have is with regard to the perceived lack of sufficient enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in India. India has already been put on the “special 301 priority watch list” of countries which do not protect IPRs. American businesses now want the US to categorise India as a “priority foreign country”, a category reserved for the worst offenders of intellectual property. If this suggestion is accepted, the US can even impose trade sanctions on India. A related complaint is with regard to India’s policy on generic drugs, especially its refusal to accept “evergreening”, a scheme used by pharmaceutical companies to continue having a patent over a drug even after its patent has expired by modifying it slightly. India’s decision to grant compulsory licenses to (within Indian and WTO rules) to anti-cancer drugs by Novartis and Bayer has infuriated Big Pharma in the US. The US has even banned Ranbaxy selling drugs from its fourth plant in the US. While the concern about IPR is justified, India’s generic drug policy is driven by the need to provide access to cheap drugs to its large poor population, few of whom have access to top quality healthcare. This has the support of the judiciary as well. So, this policy is unlikely to change and should not be changed, since it is WTO compliant.

Another concern American corporations have is to do with India’s tariffs on imports of agricultural products. While India has put tariffs on agricultural products, these are justified under WTO laws and are meant to protect Indian farmers against price reductions caused by an inflow of cheaper products. The US Commerce Department ordered an investigation into alleged dumping of steel in the US market by India and some other countries. Another repeated demand is to open up more sectors to foreign investment. These have been partly addressed through the government’s decision to allow investment in defence, telecom and insurance and also FDI in multi-brand retail recently which opens the doors for Walmart, Target, etc to enter India. However, the ceiling on foreign investments has not endeared India to American companies. The US has also pushed for a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) on which negotiations have been going on for a long time. Though India is also keen on the treaty, it has reportedly put conditions for signing the BIT: that its judiciary will have the last word on all commercial disputes and that its sovereign guarantees will not be invoked in such cases.

The new US immigration bill, which has been passed by the Senate, and which will substantially hike the fees for H-1 B visas, is also of concern to India. Though, at the moment, it seems unlikely that the bill will get passed in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, if passed, it will have serious implications for India’s IT companies. The only way out for Indian IT companies would be to change their business model.

As India moves towards becoming a middle income country, inevitably the US and India will become competitors for the same markets in several cases. With both countries having differing domestic and national priorities, they are bound to compete and conflict on trade issues. But these must not be allowed to overshadow the larger gains that bilateral trade has brought to each country.

(The writer is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The article Trade Issues Heat Up Between New Delhi And Washington – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By American Forces Press Service

President Barack Obama today informed Afghan President Hamid Karzai that because the Afghan leader has demonstrated that it is unlikely that he will sign the bilateral security agreement on a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beyond this year, he has asked the Pentagon to ensure that it has adequate plans in place to accomplish an orderly withdrawal by the end of the year should the United States not keep any troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

In a summary of the Obama-Karzai phone call released to reporters, White House officials said Obama is leaving open the possibility of concluding a bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan later this year.

“However, the longer we go without a BSA, the more challenging it will be to plan and execute any U.S. mission,” they added. “Furthermore, the longer we go without a BSA, the more likely it will be that any post-2014 U.S. mission will be smaller in scale and ambition.”

Soon after, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel released a statement expressing his “strong support” for the president’s decision.

“This is a prudent step, given that President Karzai has demonstrated that it is unlikely that he will sign the bilateral security agreement, which would provide DOD personnel with critical protections and authorities after 2014,” the secretary said. He also commended the efforts of Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., commander of U.S. forces and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and other military leaders to provide flexibility to the president as the United States works to determine the future of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

“As the United States military continues to move people and equipment out of the Afghan theater, our force posture over the next several months will provide various options for political leaders in the United States and NATO,” Hagel said in his statement. “And during this time, DOD will still continue planning for U.S. participation in a NATO-led mission focused on training, advising, and assisting Afghan security forces, as well as a narrowly focused counterterrorism mission.”

The United States will consult closely with NATO allies and ISAF partners in the months ahead, he added, noting that he looks forward to discussing U.S. planning with NATO and ISAF defense ministers in Brussels this week.

The article Contingency Plans Begin For Possible US Full Afghanistan Withdrawal appeared first on Eurasia Review.