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

Syrian Opposition Appeals For More Arms

0
0

By Al Bawaba News

The head of Syria’s opposition has appealed to foreign supporters to provide the militants with more arms as the conflict in the Arab country enters its fourth year.

Ahmed Jarba said on Saturday that the militants need the weapons to fight both the Syrian army and al-Qaeda-linked groups particularly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

He added that the opposition had accepted to take part in the Geneva talks earlier this year, but it is still waiting for its foreign supporters to send arms they pledged before and during the talks.

The militants are still receiving arms and funds from Western governments including the US and their regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The call came as the Syrian government forces managed to enter the eastern districts of the town of Yabroud, which is the last major stronghold of foreign-backed militants near the Lebanese border.

On Wednesday, Syrian forces backed by fighters from the Lebanese resistance movement of Hezbollah took full control of farmland on the northern edge of Yabroud.

The new gains for the army come days after Syrian troops regained the control of the town of al-Zareh following days of fierce clashes with militants in the province of Homs.

Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since 2011. Some sources say around 130,000 people have been killed and millions displaced due to the violence fueled by militants.

Original article

The article Syrian Opposition Appeals For More Arms appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Hagel Discusses Ukraine With French Defense Minister

0
0

By American Forces Press Service

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke by phone this morning with French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to discuss the situation in Ukraine, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby reported.

“Secretary Hagel and Minister Le Drian affirmed the solidarity of the NATO alliance and discussed the importance of the United States and France continuing to working closely with one another to support Central and Eastern European allies,” Kirby said in a statement summarizing the call.

The two defense leaders discussed their respective reviews of bilateral military cooperation with Russia, he added, and they pledged that senior officials from both the United States and France will continue to remain in close touch on those matters in the days ahead.

Hagel and Le Drian also discussed ongoing U.S. assistance to French operations in Africa, Kirby said.

The article Hagel Discusses Ukraine With French Defense Minister appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Two Asian American Rabbis Change Face Of Jewry – OpEd

0
0

By Rabbi Allen S. Maller

Fifteen months ago, a Korean American woman, Angela Buchdahl was named Senior Rabbi of Manhattan’s Central Synagogue in a unanimous vote by the synagogue’s Board of Trustees.

She is the first Asian-American senior rabbi of one of the North America’s largest ( 2400 families) Reform synagogues.

Born in South Korea in 1972 to an American Jewish father and a Korean Buddhist Mother, Rabbi Buchdahl exemplifies the new, ethnically diverse face of the worldwide Jewish community.

The Jewish People now includes between 300-500,000 non-Jews who have become Jewish; formally by conversion or informally by acculturation into the Jewish people and its culture.

If their children are added in; the number of Jews with recent non-Jewish ancestors is 1-2 million out of only 13 million Jews worldwide.

Chinese American Reform Rabbi Jacqueline Mates-Muchin is the associate rabbi of the thousand family members of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California.

“I’m a Jewish mother, and so was my mother,” the rabbi said, noting that her mother converted before marriage, and she and her sister grew up in San Francisco’s Reform Congregation Shearith Israel.

A large percentage of these ‘new Jews’, even those from Asia and Africa, are descendants of a previous Jewish ancestor who was cut off from the Jewish people by converting or marrying out of the Jewish community..

Sometimes those who are returning only learn about their Jewish ancestor after they become Jewish.

The souls of Jews whose children have been cut off from the Jewish people, either through assimilation, persecution or conversion to another religion, will reincarnate as one of their own ‘no longer Jewish’ descendants.

These souls, two to seven generations later, will seek to return to the Jewish people. A majority of people who end up converting (or reverting) to Judaism and the Jewish people have Jewish souls from one of their own ancestors.

Every human on earth has 8 great grandparents and 16 great great grandparents. Each of these 24 individuals contributes an equal amount of genetic material to their descendants. Nevertheless, brothers or sisters who share the same 24 ancestors do not have identical genomes.

Unless they are identical twins their physical, mental and personality traits always differ, sometimes greatly, from siblings who share the same physical genetic heritage.

This difference is the result of the unique physical combination of genes that occurs at conception; and the unique soul that enters the body sometime during the second trimester.

Every year many hundreds of people find out that one or two of their 24 ancestors might have been Jewish.. For most of them this discovery is an interesting fact of little significance. For many of them it might be an embarrassment to be ignored. But for some of them it becomes a life changing discovery.

They feel drawn to Jewish people and seek to learn about Jewish music, food, literature, culture and religion.

They feel more and more attached in some mysterious way to the Holocaust and the struggle of Israel to live in peace in the Middle East.

Many of these people eventually are led to become Jewish either by formal conversion or by informal reversion within Reform synagogues.

According to a mystical 14th century Jewish Kabbalistic teaching found in Sefer HaPliyah, those people who do feel this powerful attraction to Jewish things and Jewish people, have Jewish souls that are reincarnations (gilgulim) of one of their own Jewish ancestors from 3-7 generations in the past.

That explains why they react to the discovery of some Jewish heritage in such a unusual way.

It also explains why some people who do not even know that they have Jewish ancestors follow a similar path; and only discover a Jewish ancestor years after they have returned to the Jewish people.

The Hebrew word for reincarnation is gilgul which means recycling. Not everyone reincarnates. Many people are born with new souls who are here for the first time.

Others have a soul that has lived on this planet before. Many people do not reincarnate after their life on this earth is over.

Most people who end up becoming Jewish, especially now, after the Jewish people have experienced several generations of assimilation, marriage to non-Jews, hiding from anti-semitism and outright genocide, are descendants of people whose children, in one way or another, have been cut off from the Jewish People.

Among their non-Jewish descendants a few will inherit a Jewish soul that will seek to return to the Jewish people.

If you think you might have an ancestor who was Jewish, but no one in your family seems to know, you can use this introspective personality and character test to give you some hints.

1- Do you like to ask questions especially about religion? But when you asked them as a child, you were told faith is a gift from God and you shouldn’t question it. This never satisfied you, although others didn’t question it.

2- The trinity never made any sense to you even as a young child. You prayed to God the father more easily than Jesus, the son of God, even though you were told to pray to Jesus. You never could believe that people who didn’t believe in Jesus couldn’t go to Heaven.

3- On first learning of the Holocaust you reacted more emotionally than your friends or other members of your family. You feel some sense of connection with the Jewish struggle to defend Israel.

4- You have an attraction to Jewish people, or to Judaism and Jewish culture. You have always been more open to people who were culturally, nationally or religiously different from your own family, than your friends or class mates.

If you answer yes to three of these four items you probably have Jewish ancestors. Many, but not all, people who answer yes to all four items will be interested in learning more about their Jewish roots. If you become very interested in studying Judaism you probably do have a Jewish soul.

If the following item also applies to you, you certainly have a Jewish soul.

5- When you start to learn about Judaism: the ideas and values seem reasonable to you; the traditions and heritage are very attractive to you; and the non-Jews around you as well as you yourself, are surprised that you slowly come to feel that you are coming home.

The article Two Asian American Rabbis Change Face Of Jewry – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Behind Qatar’s Crisis With The GCC – Analysis

0
0

By JTW

By Razan Malash

After Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain announced last week that they would pull their ambassadors from Qatar in response to what they considered a lack of commitment from Doha to the Riyadh Agreement signed three months ago, the three countries issued a joint statement explaining that the decision was taken to protect their national security. According to the statement, Qatar has not taken the necessary measures to enact the Riyadh Agreement, which outlines principles of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries.

Qatar, in turn, expressed regret and surprise at the decision, vowing not to reciprocate in kind.

What is the impact of this move on the future of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)? What are the implications for the Council’s internal political dynamics?

The ostensible issue of contention is that Doha hasn’t stopped incitement activities through the Al-Jazeera network which, as the media front for the Muslim Brotherhood, is perceived as working at cross purposes from most GCC countries.

Saudi Arabia is bothered by the fact that Qatar is offering citizenship and support to Saudi opposition figures working out of Qatar and financing those residing in Europe, supporting campaigns against Riyadh by international human rights organizations, urging (and funding) a Houthi takeover in Yemen, and trying to buy the loyalty of some Saudi tribal elders and members of the Saudi royal family.

The UAE, for its part, has its own grievances against Qatar. Qatar gave a platform for Yusuf al-Qaradawi to launch a barrage of accusations against its neighbor UAE. An Emirati court also found Al-Jazeera complicit in anti-government media programming in the UAE.

In the meantime, the Egyptian government, incensed at Qatar’s support for the Brotherhood through Al-Jazeera, has come out in support for the recent withdrawal of ambassadors from Qatar.

But what was the deeper reason for the recall?

The GCC countries may have mistakenly believed that Qatar would change its foreign policy after of the accession Prince Tamim. But Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain have since reached the conclusion that Qataris do not want to end their support for extremist groups representing political Islam in the region. They believe that Qatar is arming those groups as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The changes within Arab countries, especially Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, have engendered a new regional political configuration. In the past few years, Qatar, assisted by its media arsenal, has managed to gain the trust of the Arab public and be a source on the Arab scene for many foreign news outlets. Qatar competed with Egypt competed for the post of Secretary General of the Arab League, and it has played a direct role in toppling Gaddafi and Mubarak, attempting to overthrow Assad, and engaging in various mediations in Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and Lebanon.

With the support of Washington, Doha has benefited from the political vacuum left by Cairo, Riyadh, and Ankara. To Arabs “Qatar” is inherently associated with the political Islam which is now dominating the Arab scene and is synchronized with the U.S. administration’s policy towards Islamists. Qatar, through its media influence, is playing an outsized role in supporting polices divergent from those of the GCC.

This falling out may lead to investment disruptions—especially in the trade and transportation sectors—capable of seriously impacting the relatively small Qatar. Moreover, it may impact the Dolphin Energy pipeline which carries about 2 billion ft3 of gas daily from Qatar to the UAE and Oman, a figure about 5% of Qatar’s total exports and about 30% of the UAE’s gas needs. The ripples of dissension will probably extend beyond concerns about oil and gas to harm the Saudi Arabia-Qatar cooperation in support of the armed opposition in Syria.

The article Behind Qatar’s Crisis With The GCC – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Insights On Stability And Security Surrounding Ukraine Crisis – Interview

0
0

By JTW

By Alexander Müller

In an interview with Professor Selçuk Çolakoğlu, Deputy Director of USAK, we address the current crisis engulfing Ukraine. The interview focuses on the EU’s reaction to Russia, the implications of Putin’s aggressive policies, how the crisis may be resolved, the dimension of the problem and complex regional dynamics.

The current crisis in the Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of Crimea is making media headlines. How do you assess the situation and what would be the wider implications for security in the Black Sea region?

The ongoing developments and crisis in the Ukraine and Crimean peninsula are vital for the region and Turkey, representing a global crisis at the same time. The Black-Sea area suffers from several issues including border disputes, territorial concerns and minority conflicts. In this light, Russian aggression in Crimea may have a negative effect on the resolution of these regional problems. All parties involved should reconsider their positions and advocate a solution within the principle of territorial integrity, one that is based on mutual consent and compromise. Without solving the issues in the Caucasus, Russia cannot hope to cooperate with its European, Central Asian and Black-Sea neighbors. Hence, the independence of Crimea and a potential unification with Russia is an unacceptable alternative for the international community.

The EU is considering imposing economic sanctions on Russia in addition to freezing assets and issuing a travel ban for key government officials. Will Russia react, if so how? How can Putin be compelled to negotiate?

In truth, interdependency exists between Russia and the European Union as well as Turkey. Russia is the main provider of energy, in particular gas, to European countries while relying on Europe for technology, investments and various products. Therefore, the economic embargo would not provide an optimal solution to the crisis as it entails negative repercussions for both sides. Currently Russia retains the advantage, its dominant position stemming from supplying Europe with its energy resources. However, in the mid-term and in the long-run Russia may face incredible difficulty in selling its gas for revenue and income, potentially losing its main customers. Russia’s large economy is dependent on its energy for export to European and global markets. Both the EU and Russia should ideally act more reasonably and search for a solution within the parameters of international law.

Putin will eventually be forced to compromise in the case of Ukraine and Crimea. Up to now Russia has been pursuing a hard power approach. The Kremlin had demonstrated this strategy in the 2008 Georgian crisis by deploying troops and recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia. Nevertheless, employing the hard-power tactic has undermined Russia’s soft power capabilities. Russia may unwillingly endanger its influence in the Eurasian Union, an economic sphere of cooperation established by Moscow in the former Soviet Republics. Russia’s neighbors, in particular those with large Russian minorities such as Kazakhstan, may become hesitant to seek deeper integrational ties with Russia. Putin should realize that exercising hard power and showing muscle is no solution in the long run nor a beneficial attitude for Russia’s international image.

In terms of a reaction to Russia, countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus attempt to re-balance Russia with other actors. It should be noted that a peaceful resolution must be found within the boundaries of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.

International leaders have reassured their support for the new government in Kiev and seek a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine crisis. How would you evaluate Europe’s strategy, and if you had to advise the EU on the situation what points would you stress?

Most Western countries, including the U.S. and EU Member States, recognize the legitimacy and authority of the new government in Kiev. A consensus prevails among European countries that the transitional government in Ukraine should receive sustained political and economic support. A tangible compromise in the ongoing crisis is currently not visible, since no action plan is available to address the issue in Crimea and the EU lacks an effective policy to confront Russia. The economic embargo may also prove to have a limited impact in deterring Russia from its aggressive attitude.

In the case of Europe, the EU must adopt a newfound position in response to Moscow’s attempted annexation of Crimea. At present, the EU’s handicap lies in the lack of a Common Foreign and Security Policy. If the EU proves incapable of adopting a common stance towards Russia and the crisis in Ukraine, it would ultimately undermine its own foreign policy capability and ability to initiate in the near future. Consequently, the ongoing negotiations and cooperation between the EU and NATO will be decisive in fostering progress on formulating a common European foreign policy, as well as providing leverage to secure a deal with Russia.

What are your thoughts on Ukraine? Is a division of the country inevitable, perhaps even desirable or necessary to guarantee peace, security and stability?

The Ukraine does not represent the only example of a country characterized by a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious environment. The international community, especially Europe, should provide support to maintain Ukraine’s territorial integrity and encourage the peaceful integration of societal groups, whilst avoiding ethnic and sectarian violence.

Since other countries exist within Ukraine’s geographical proximity that contain a similar division among cultural and political lines, fears have arisen that social unrest may spillover national boundaries and destabilize other regions. In this sense, if the European Union and Russia manage to generate common ground and implement a peaceful solution to Ukraine, this will serve as a source of cooperation in the greater European area. Alternatively, if a solution does not materialize, Europe and Russia may witness the revival of old paranoia’s and Cold-War mentalities in the region. The emergence of such ideologies would not be beneficial, as they risk complicating the search for a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine and Crimea crises. As such, all parties must adopt a more cooperative and reconciliatory approach in order to preserve Ukrainian unity as a zone of cooperation in face of re-emerging enmities, mentalities and ways of thinking.

How is Turkey addressing the situation in Ukraine?

Turkey until now has adopted very little whilst maintaining a calm and cautious policy towards the crisis in Ukraine. The reasons for this stance are rooted in Turkey’s desire to comply with international principles, such as respecting and highlighting the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Attention and diplomatic efforts on behalf of Turkey towards Ukraine are also governed by membership in NATO. Turkey strives to act within a NATO framework and along the lines of its allies, without harming its relations to Russia.

Turkey also upholds strong economic ties with Russia, which has become its second biggest trading partner. Furthermore, Turkey is dependent on the import of Russian gas to satisfy its energy demand. Economic dependence and cooperation prevails in several sectors. Hence, Turkey remains cautious in its approach towards Ukraine, wishing to avoid jeopardizing bilateral trade relations while seeking balanced solutions.

In the case of Crimea, Turkey supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity and argues that the Crimean peninsula remains under sovereign jurisdiction of Kiev. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that Russia retains some rights and interests in the region, especially regarding the presence of a large Russian population. Turkey’s primary concern regarding Crimea revolves around the Crimean Tatars, a 12% Muslim and Turkish-speaking minority within the population. Turkey is closely observing developments related to the Tatars and ensuring that their rights are respected, whilst encouraging the Tatars to remain calm and not to retaliate against Russian movements. Thus, a close dialogue exists between Moscow, Kiev and Ankara. Turkey overall pursues a balanced yet pro-Western policy in the case of Ukraine.

Turkey’s final concern is focused on the Black Sea. The Black Sea was classified as international waters in the Montreux Convention of 1936. Accordingly, certain rules and restrictions exist concerning the operation of naval forces of non-littoral states. Turkey is therefore seeking to preserve the legal status of the Black Sea and compromising with Russia on the status quo in the region.

In conclusion, Turkey is pursuing a somewhat quiet diplomacy whilst acting as a facilitator between the Ukraine and Russia on the one hand, and between Russia and the West on the other hand. Turkey does not desire military confrontation or conflict. Instead it hopes that Russia and the West manage to conclude a peaceful deal without conceding Ukrainian territory, and possibly granting greater autonomy to Crimea and other pro-Russian regions in Ukraine.

The article Insights On Stability And Security Surrounding Ukraine Crisis – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Protests Russian ‘Invasion’ Of Area Near Crimea

0
0

By RFE RL

(RFE/RL) — Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry has released a statement expressing its’ “strong and categorical protest against the landing” of Russian troops in an area some 10 kilometers north of Crimea.

A statement issued by the ministry said some 80 troops of the “Russian Federation Armed Forces” backed by four helicopter gunships and three armored combat vehicles had seized the village of Strilkove in the Kherson region on March 15.

The ministry called it an “invasion” of Ukrainian territory and demanded Russia withdraw its forces immediately.

Ukrainian border guard spokesman Oleh Slobodan told the Associated Press news agency that some 120 Russian troops had taken control of a natural gas distribution station at Strilkove.

Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry said Ukraine “reserves the right to use all necessary measures to stop the military invasion by Russia.”

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry released a statement earlier on March 15, claiming Ukrainian forces had repelled an attempt “by servicemen of the armed forces of the Russian Federation to enter the territory of the Kherson region on Arbatskaya Strelka.”

However, as of the evening of March 15 it appeared from reports that the Russian troops were still at Strilkove and might have been reinforced during the course of the day.

An estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Russian troops remain in Crimea, where they have been for the past two weeks.

The United States Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power called news of the Russian troop movement into Ukraine an “outrageous escalation” of the crisis.

Power was at the UN on March 15 for a Security Council vote on a draft resolution that would have declared the planned referendum on the status of Crimea invalid.

As expected, Russia vetoed the draft resolution at the Security Council vote.

China abstained, while the other 13 members of the Council voted in favor of the draft which said Crimea’s vote on secession from Ukraine “can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea,” and called on “all states, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum.”

After the resolution failed to be approved, Power said Russia might have the power to veto that resolution but could not alter the facts.

“Under the UN Charter, the Russian Federation has the power to veto a Security Council resolution but it does not have the power to veto the truth,” she said.

Power also reiterated that Russia can expect to be punished for its actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

“Russia cannot change the fact that moving forward in blatant defiance of the international rules of the road will have consequence, nor can it change Crimea’s status,” she said. “Crimea is part of Ukraine today, it will be part of Ukraine tomorrow, it will be part of Ukraine next week, it will be part of Ukraine unless and until its status is changed in accordance with Ukrainian and international law.”

Meanwhile, Russian news agencies ITAR-TASS and Interfax have issued numerous reports about Russia’s Foreign Ministry receiving “requests for protecting civilians” in Ukraine.

“Militants, including ones from the Right Sector, continue to commit outrages in Ukraine,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.

So far, no non-Russian news agencies have reported on any “outrages” against the population in eastern Ukraine.

The article Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Protests Russian ‘Invasion’ Of Area Near Crimea appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Attempt To Jam Russian Satellites Carried Out From Western Ukraine

0
0

By RT

An attempted radio-electronic attack on Russian television satellites from the territory of Western Ukraine has been recorded by the Ministry of Communications. It comes days after Ukraine blocked Russian TV channels, a move criticized by the OSCE.

Russian Ministry of Communications experts identified the exact location in Ukraine of the source of attempted jamming of Russian TV satellites’ broadcast, RIA Novosti news agency reports.

The ministry noted that “people who make such decisions” to attack Russian satellites that retransmit TV signals, “should think about the consequences,” Ria reports. The ministry did not share any details of the attack.

Earlier this week, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) criticized Kiev’s “repressive” move to halt the broadcasting of Russian TV channels after the Ukrainian media watchdog claimed that shutting down TV stations ensured “national security and sovereignty” of Ukraine.

“Banning programming without a legal basis is a form of censorship; national security concerns should not be used at the expense of media freedom,” OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović said.

More than half of Ukraine’s population speaks Russian regularly and one third say it’s their native tongue. In Crimea over 90 percent of the population uses Russian on an everyday basis.

On Thursday, a number of Russian state TV channels websites suffered a large cyber-attack partially coming from Ukraine.

Russia’s Channel One website was temporarily unavailable due to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. Meanwhile, Russia-24 TV also said it suffered from a “massive network attack.”

According to Itar-Tass, the targeted Russian media have connected attacks to their editorial policy of covering the recent events in Ukraine.

An international media company in Kiev said it was visited by unknown people armed with knives, who threatened the employees against working with Russian TV channels, RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan wrote on Twitter.

The company, which asked for anonymity citing concerns for own safety, said it could no longer work with RT.

Intimidation and threats to journalists have lately become common practice in Ukraine with several Russian journalists coming under attack from radicals, says RT correspondent Marina Kosareva.

“We have countless of reports of journalists being attacked by those radicals that we’ve seen on Maidan Square as well,” she said.

Kosareva cited as an example an incident on March 5 with a pro-Russian journalist, Sergey Rulev who was beaten up and threatened by Ukrainian nationalists “just because he dared to interview riot police [Berkut].”

A correspondent for Russiya-24 TV channel, Artyom Kol said he was repeatedly threatened by ultra-nationalist group Right Sector who placed him on a ‘wanted list’ on February 22.

The article Attempt To Jam Russian Satellites Carried Out From Western Ukraine appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Gender And Caste Discrimination: Apartheid In ‘New’ India – OpEd

0
0

By Graham Peebles

A suffocating patriarchal shadow hangs over the lives of women throughout India. From all sections, castes and classes of society, women are victim of its repressive, controlling effects. Those subjected to the heaviest burden of discrimination are from the Dalit or Scheduled Castes, known in less liberal democratic times as the ’untouchables’. The name may have been banned but pervasive negative attitudes of mind remain, as do the extreme levels of abuse and servitude experienced by Dalit women. They experience multiple levels of discrimination and exploitation, much of which is barbaric, degrading, appallingly violent, and totally inhumane.

The divisive caste system – in operation throughout India – Old and ‘New’, together with inequitable gender attitudes, sits at the heart of the wide-ranging human rights abuses experienced by Dalit or ‘outcaste’ women. “Discriminatory and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of over 165 million people in India has been justified on the basis of caste” [Human Rights Watch (HRW)]: Caste refers to a traditional (Hindu) model of social stratification, which defines people by descent and occupation, it is “a system of graded inequality in which castes are arranged according to an ascending scale of reverence, and a descending scale of contempt … i.e. as you go up the caste system, the power and status of a caste group increases and as you go down the scale the degree of contempt for the caste increases, as these castes have no power, are of low status, and are regarded as dirty and polluting,” [United Nations (UN) Special rapporteur on violence against women – India visit 2013] – hence ‘untouchable’.

Despite, as Navi Pillay United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights states, India’s “far-reaching constitutional guarantees and laws which prohibit caste-based discrimination”, Dalit women are the victims of a collision of deep-rooted gender and caste discrimination, resulting in wide ranging exploitation. They are “oppressed by the broader Indian society, men from their own community and also their own husbands and male members in the family” [UN]. Practices like the Devadasi system (where girls as young as 12 years of age are dedicated to the Hindu goddess Yellamma and sold into prostitution); honour killings; sexual abuse including rape; appalling working conditions; and limited access to basic services such as water, sanitation and employment are commonplace.

All women in India face discrimination and sexual intimidation, however the “human rights of Dalit women are violated in peculiar and extreme forms. Stripping, naked parading, caste abuses, pulling out nails and hair, sexual slavery & bondage are a few forms peculiar to Dalit women.” These women are living under a form of apartheid: discrimination and social exclusion is a major factor, denying access ”to common property resources like land, water and livelihood sources, [causing] exclusion from schools, places of worship, common dining, inter-caste marriages” [UN].

The lower castes are segregated from other members of the community, prohibited from eating with ‘higher’ castes, from using village wells and ponds, entering village temples and higher caste houses, wearing sandals or even holding umbrellas in front of higher castes; they are forced to sit alone and use different crockery in restaurants, prohibited from cycling a bicycle inside their village and are made to bury their dead in a separate burial ground. They frequently face eviction from their land by higher ‘dominant’ castes, forcing them to live on the outskirts of villages often on barren land.

This plethora of prejudice amounts to apartheid, and it is time – long overdue – that the ‘democratic’ government of India enforced existing legislation and purged the country of the criminality of caste- and gender-based discrimination and exploitation.

Exploitation and Patriarchal Power

The power play of patriarchy saturates every area of Indian society and gives rise to a variety of discriminatory practices, from female infanticide, discrimination against girls and dowry related deaths. It is a major cause of exploitation and abuse of women, with a great deal of sexual violence being perpetrated by men in positions of power. These range from higher caste men violating lower caste women, specifically Dalits; policemen mistreating women from poor households; and military men abusing Dalit and Adivasi women in insurgency States, such as Kashmir, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Manipur. Security personnel are protected by the widely criticized Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which grants impunity to police and members of the military carrying out criminal acts of rape and indeed murder; it was promulgated by the British in 1942 as an emergency measure, to suppress the Quit India Movement. It is an unjust law, which needs abolishing.

In December 2012 the heinous gang rape and mutilation of a 23 year-old paramedical student in New Delhi, who subsequently died from her injuries, garnered worldwide media attention, throwing a momentary spotlight on the dangers, oppression and appalling treatment women in India face every day. Rape is endemic in the country: “according to India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), registered rape cases increased by almost 900 percent over the last 40 years, to 24,206 incidents in 2011” [Foreign Policy (FP)]. With most cases of rape going unreported and many being dismissed by police, the true figure could be ten times this. The women most at risk of abuse are Dalits: the NCRB estimates that “more than four Dalit-women are raped every day in India.” Excluded and largely ignored by Indian society a study from the United Nations (UN) reveals that “the majority of Dalit women report having faced one or more incidents of verbal abuse (62.4%), physical assault (54.8%), sexual harassment and assault (46.8%), domestic violence (43.0%) and rape (23.2%).” They are subjected to “rape, molestation, kidnapping, abduction, homicide physical and mental torture, immoral traffic and sexual abuse.”

The UN found that large numbers were obstructed from seeking justice: in 17% of instances of violence (including rape) victims were obstructed from reporting the crime by the police, in over 25% of cases the community stopped women filing complaints, and in over 40%, women “did not attempt to obtain legal or community remedies for the violence primarily out of fear of the perpetrators or social dishonour if (sexual) violence was revealed.” In only 1% of recorded cases were perpetrators convicted. What “follows incidents of violence,” the UN found, is “a resounding silence.” The effect when it comes to Dalit women specifically, but not exclusively, “is the creation and maintenance of a culture of violence, silence and impunity.”

The Indian constitution makes clear the “principle of non-discrimination on the basis or caste or gender,” it guarantees the “right to life and to security of life” and Article 46, specifically “protects Dalits from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.” Add to this the important Scheduled castes/tribes (Prevention of atrocities Act passed in 1989, and a well-armed legislative army is formed. However, because of “low levels of implementation” the UN states “the provisions that protect women’s rights have to be considered empty of meaning.” It is a familiar Indian story: judicial indifference (as well as cost, lack of access to legal representation, endless red-tape and obstructive staff), police corruption, and government collusion, plus media indifference causing (the) major obstacles to justice and the observation and enforcement of the law.

Unlike middle class girls, Dalit rape victims (whose numbers are growing) rarely receive the attention of the caste/class-conscious urban-centric media, whose primary concern is to promote a Bollywood shiny, open-for-business image of the country.

I was in India in January when a 20 year-old Dalit women from the Santhal tribal group in West Bengal was gang-raped, “on the orders of village elders who objected to her relationship (which had been going on in secret for five years) with a man from a nearby village in the Birdhum district.” The violent incident occurred when “the man visited the woman’s home on Monday [20th January] with the proposal of marriage, villagers spotted him and organised a kangaroo court. During the ‘proceedings’, the couple were made to sit with hands tied…the headman of the woman’s village fined the couple 25,000 rupees ($400; £240) for “the crime of falling in love. The man paid up, but the woman’s family were unable to pay” [BBC]: so the ’headman’ and 12 of his cohorts repeatedly raped her.

Violence, exploitation and exclusion, are used to keep Dalit women in a position of subordination and to maintain the patriarchal grip on power throughout Indian society, the cities are dangerous places for women, but it is in the countryside, where most people live (70%) that the greatest levels of abuse occur. Many living in rural areas live in extreme poverty (800 million people in India live on less than $2.50 a day), with little or no access to health care, poor education and appalling or none existent sanitation. It is a world apart from democratic Delhi, or multi-westernized Mumbai: water, electricity, democracy and the rule of law are yet to reach into the lives of the women in India’s villages – home, Mahatma Gandhi famously declared, to the soul of the country.

After two decades of economic growth, India finds itself languishing 136th (of 186 countries) in the (gender equality adjusted) United Nations Human Development index. Development and let us add democracy (for under the corporate state system of contemporary democratic governance the two are interwoven) confined to and defined by economic data, infrastructure projects and ‘inward investment’ packages; development which celebrates the billionaires billions and is intent on commercializing every aspect of life whilst allowing cruelty, sex slavery, trafficking, forced labour and ritualized prostitution to flourish amongst some of the worlds poorest, most vulnerable women, is a model of development and a type of democracy that should be confined to the smouldering, stinking rubbish heaps that litter India’s cities and towns.

Repressive Ideas of Gender Inequality

Indian society is segregated in multiple ways; caste/class, gender, wealth and poverty, and religion. Entrenched patriarchy and gender divisions, which value boys over girls and keep men and women, boys and girls, apart, combine with child marriage to contribute to the creation of a society in which sexual abuse and exploitation of women, particularly Dalit women, is an acceptable part of everyday life. Sociologically and psychologically conditioned into division, schoolchildren separate themselves along gender lines; in many areas women sit on one side of buses, men another; special women-only carriages have been installed on the Delhi and Mumbai metro, introduced to protect women from sexual harassment or ‘eve teasing’ as it is colloquially known. Such safety measures whilst being welcomed by women and women’s groups, do not of course deal with the underlying causes of abuse, and in a sense may further inflame them. “In India, the age-old code of conduct has been to keep men and women separate. So women are only viewed as sex objects,” [Vibhuti Patel Times of India].

Rape, sexual violence, molestation and harassment are rife, but, with the exception perhaps of the Bollywood Mumbai set, sex is a taboo subject. A poll by India Today conducted in 2011, found 25% of people had no objection to sex before marriage, providing it was not in their family [FP]. Sociological separation fuels gender divisions, supports prejudicial stereotypes and stokes sexual repression, which many women’s organisations (logically), believe “accounts for the high rate of sexual violence” [FP]. A 2011 study by the International Center for Research on Women of men’s attitudes in India towards women produced some startling statistics: One in four admitted having “used sexual violence (against a partner or against any woman)”, one in five reported using “sexual violence against a stable [female] partner.” Half of men don’t want to see gender equality, 80% regard changing nappies, feeding and bathing children to be ‘women’s work’, and a mere 16% play any part in household duties. Added to these inhibiting attitudes of mind, Homophobia is the norm, with 92% confessing they would be ashamed to have a gay friend, or even be in the vicinity of a gay man.

A catalogue of Victorian gender stereotypes, fuelled by a caste system designed to subjugate, which trap both men and women into conditioned cells of isolation where destructive ideas of gender are allowed to ferment, causing explosions of sexual violence, exploitation and abuse.

The article Gender And Caste Discrimination: Apartheid In ‘New’ India – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Malaysian PM: Someone On Plane Likely Turned Off Communications

0
0

By VOA

By Steve Herman

Malaysia’s prime minister, Najib Razak, says there is a “high degree of certainty” someone deliberately shut off the communications systems on the missing Malaysian jetliner, but he stopped short of saying the plane was hijacked.

Najib’s remarks Saturday triggered a new flood of speculation into what caused the Boeing 777 to vanish from civilian radar soon after taking off on March 8.

He said somewhere near the Malaysian border the plane’s transponder was switched off, before the jet veered westward in a fashion “consistent with deliberate action.”

“The Royal Malaysian Air Force primary radar data showed that an aircraft, which was believed, but not confirmed to be MH370 did indeed turn back. It then flew in a westerly direction back over peninsula Malaysia before turning northwest,” he said.

The prime minister said despite media reports of a hijacking, Malaysian authorities are looking into all possibilities of what might have caused the flight to deviate from its original path. He said officials are refocusing their investigation on the crew and passengers.

Najib said signals between the Malaysia Airlines plane and a satellite continued more than six-and-a-half hours after primary contact with the jet was lost.

He said authorities are now trying to trace the plane in two possible corridors: one from the border of Kazakhstan to northern Thailand, and the other south to the southern Indian Ocean. He said search efforts in the South China Sea are ending.

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has led to one of aviation’s most puzzling mysteries.

Speculation has been rampant about what caused the plane’s disappearance, including mechanical failure, a hijacking, terrorism or pilot intent to commit suicide.

Dozens of ships and planes from about 15 countries have contributed to the search for the aircraft, which had 239 people on board. It was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing when it disappeared.

U.S. officials have said the jet may have crashed into the Indian Ocean. Indian military aircraft have flown in the Indian Ocean over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands – more than 500 mostly uninhabited, heavily forested land masses.

About two-thirds of the people on board the missing flight were Chinese. Other passengers included Europeans and Americans.

The article Malaysian PM: Someone On Plane Likely Turned Off Communications appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Crimea: Attacks And ‘Disappearances’ By Illegal Forces

0
0

By Eurasia Review

Self-defense units and paramilitary forces in Crimea are abducting, attacking, and harassing activists and journalists.

These forces operate outside of the law, without insignia, without a clear command structure, and with complete impunity. Local authorities in Crimea have a responsibility to ensure these forces cease their actions, disband, and disarm, Human Rights Watch said.

“Crimean authorities are allowing illegal and unidentified armed units to run the show in the peninsula, and to commit crimes that go uninvestigated and unpunished, as if there is a legal vacuum,” said Rachel Denber, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Far from it. The local authorities have clear legal obligations to provide protection and security to those in their jurisdiction.”

Human Rights Watch documented the involvement of self-defense units in the abductions of at least six activists from the Euromaidan movement, which organized the months of protests in Kiev that led to President Viktor Yanukovich’s ouster. These units have also attacked and harassed numerous local and foreign journalists.

Local and international media freedom groups have also documented dozens of attacks against reporters by self-defense groups across Crimea. Ukrainian human rights groups have reported that the units have also been involved in violently dispersing demonstrations, unlawfully searching people and vehicles, especially at the Crimea’s administrative borders, and harassing ordinary citizens.

Self-defense units started actively operating throughout Crimea at the end of February 2014. Their “commander,” Pavel Sheremet, his official status unclear, said at a news conference on March 4 that the units consist of former policemen, former army officers, Afghan war veterans, and others. Sheremet emphasized that the units do not have the right to conduct searches or arrests, and should operate jointly with the police.

The head of the Crimean Council of Ministers, Sergei Aksenov, said that as of March 4, 11,000 men have signed up as members of self-defense units, and that they are armed with shields, sticks, and “lawfully registered firearms.” Aksenov said that the units will be necessary before and during the referendum on the status of Crimea, scheduled for March 16, and until the situation in Ukraine “stabilizes.” He denied widespread allegations that Russian security services were among the units.

According to statements by officials in Crimea, these forces have “taken under control” all military installations, law enforcement agencies, and “strategic objects.”

However, Human Rights Watch observations on the ground in Crimea and interviews with people who had – or were witnesses to – interactions with self-defense units, suggest that these units operate outside any legal framework. Some wear camouflage clothes without insignia, others are in civilian clothes. Many wear armbands that symbolize loyalty to Russia with the colors of the Russian flag, or the black and orange St. George flag, the symbol of the highest Russian military honor. Units patrolling the streets are usually unarmed and do not wear masks, while those manning checkpoints, or other strategic locations, wear black balaclavas and carry automatic weapons, including AK-47s.

Ukrainian law allows for the “participation of citizens in maintaining law and order,” including the creation of self-defense units, but specifies that they are allowed to operate only jointly with regular law enforcement agencies, under clearly identified circumstances, and never with the use of firearms.

Human Rights Watch found that local police appear to have no coordination with or control over the units. In several cases documented below, witnesses and victims of abuses told Human Rights Watch that the police either were not present during the operations conducted by self-defense units, merely stood by, or explicitly refused to intervene, saying that they had no authority over these units.

Based on accounts by witnesses, as well as multiple professional and amateur videos posted on YouTube, the self-defense units are often accompanied by or operate together with Cossacks, as well as large groups of fully uniformed masked men without insignia, widely believed by the locals to be members of Russian armed or special forces. On at least one occasion reported to Human Rights Watch, a member of a self-defense unit admitted to belonging to Russian security forces.

A Ukrainian commander of one of the Ukraine military bases in Simferopol told Human Rights Watch that, as armed men in camouflage without insignia were taking over the base, the Ukrainian officers tried to negotiate with them, stating that Crimea was part of the Ukrainian territory, where Ukrainian laws applied. The commander said that one of the paramilitaries then yelled, “I don’t care about Ukrainian laws; I am an officer of the Russian Federation!”

Human Rights Watch is concerned that the presence in the streets and public buildings of armed men in military uniform, as well as self-defense patrols who are not members of regular law enforcement or security forces, pose a threat to the people’s liberty and security in Crimea.

The authorities in Crimea should immediately disarm and disband all units operating outside of the law, protect people from their illegal actions, and ensure that all law enforcement activities are carried out by the police, Human Rights Watch said. Authorities should ensure that any self-defense units that are created operate in accordance with the law and that the public is aware of the units’ chain of command structure and accountability mechanisms.

The authorities should also open investigations into crimes and human rights abuses allegedly committed by members of self-defense units and hold them to account. Those detained or “disappeared” by the units or paramilitaries should be immediately released, and journalists should be allowed to carry out their work without intimidation and harassment.

Under human rights law, including in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on authorities throughout Ukraine, the authorities have an obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives and security of everyone within their jurisdiction. This obligation entails a duty to enforce an appropriate legal framework to deter the offenses against the person, in particular those that would lead to violations of liberty or security, or cause serious injury or loss of life. Permitting unregulated forces to carry out abusive security operations violates that obligation and basic respect for human rights.

“Crimean authorities have allowed the so-called self-defense units to have free rein in the lead-up to the referendum, and so far these units have focused on silencing critical voices and controlling information,” Denber said. “A campaign of threats, harassment, attacks, and even ‘disappearances,’ against activists seems to have no limits.”

The article Crimea: Attacks And ‘Disappearances’ By Illegal Forces appeared first on Eurasia Review.

J.K. Rowling Unveils New ‘Harry Potter’ Story Online

0
0

By PanArmenian

While she may have retired Harry Potter and his friends, J.K. Rowling never wandered far from Hogwarts, TheWrap said.

In September, she and Warner Bros. announced that she would be writing the screenplay for the movie adaptation of her book “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” and she’s similarly continued to expand the wizarding world with her website, Pottermore.com. On Friday, March 14 she released the first chapter in a new, 2,400-word story about the Quidditch World Cup.

Although Quidditch has been part of the Potter series from the beginning, and Harry and Ron even attend the massive World Cup in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” which was released in 2000, Rowling’s new story seems to take direct inspiration from the logistical struggles of the Sochi Olympics and upcoming FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

“The ICWQC [International Confederations of Wizards Quidditch Committee] has the unlucky job of regulating this contentious and anarchic competition,” Rowling writes. “A source of vehement disagreements, a security risk for all who attend it and a frequent focus for unrest and protest, the Quidditch World Cup is simultaneously the most exhilarating sporting event on earth and a logistical nightmare for the host nation.”

The chapter goes on to list some of the most controversial rules and moments in the tournament, which stretches back to 1473, including not just the Death Eater-driven events of “Goblet of Fire,” but also the “Attack of the Killer Forest” in 1809 and “Royston Idelwind and the Dissimulators” of 1971.

The article J.K. Rowling Unveils New ‘Harry Potter’ Story Online appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukraine Crisis Prevention: An Iranian Perspective

0
0

By Iran Review

By Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

With the clock ticking fast toward the March 16th hastily-arranged referendum in Crimea on separating from Ukraine and joining Russia, a move welcomed by the Russian lawmakers, the Ukrainian crisis is now definitely spiraling toward a full-blown crisis, which can easily get out of hand if the current mediation efforts fail.

Some European leaders have lamented the absence of an international contact group to act as go-between and certainly this is a high priority that requires urgent attention by world leaders. The initial round of sanctions on Russia has already materialized in the form of visa restrictions and more sanctions will follow if Crimea joins Russia, even though the British officials appear to have drawn a line on Crimea, withholding meaningful sanctions as far as Russia has not moved into eastern Ukraine, in light of the substantial economic interdependence of Moscow and London; other European Union countries certainly feel the same restraints imposed by the weight of the enormous economic interests involved in maintaining a business as usual with Moscow, which is the main provider of energy export to the continent for the foreseeable future.

But, with the crisis assuming a geostrategic character trumping the purely economic logic, the annexation of Crimea may be a fait accompli, unless the Ukrainian government and its western backers agree to make serious, substantial, and long-term pledges to Russia: No NATO in Ukraine, guarantee of Russian access to Crimea, and protection of rights of Russian minority.

Hypothetically, these Russian demands are within the realm of possible and, indeed, it is to Ukraine’s own interest to accede to them, instead of witness a partition of Crimea followed by a “frozen conflict” with potentially devastating economic results. Even some leading Western voices, such as Henry Kissinger, have come out in favor of “Finlandization of Ukraine,” which means “no NATO in Ukraine ever,” to paraphrase the former US secretary of state. After all, historically Ukraine has served Russia as a convenient buffer and NATO’s expansion after the recent regime change in Kiev, suspected of Western-engineered by Moscow, would have deleterious national security consequences for Russia, particularly since the far-right groups in control of Ukraine’s army and security today have repeatedly called for discarding the recent agreement that extended the Russian Black Sea Force’s access to Crimea until 2042. Clearly, that is unacceptable by Russia and something must give, otherwise Russia’s resort to force to defend its vital military interests in the region will continue.

In terms of crisis-avoidance, the Ukrainian government, which has scheduled a national election on May 25th, can assuage the Russian fear by agreeing to adopt the terms of February 21 agreement brokered by EU on elections, thus raising hopes for a coalition government of national unity. This, together with pledges of keeping NATO out of Ukraine and respecting Russian access to its naval bases in Crimea, can go a long way in nipping this highly dangerous crisis in the bud.  After all, economically speaking, it is not in Russia’s or Ukraine’s interests to see the evaporation of their extensive relations, e.g. Russia is the main source of nuclear assistance for Ukraine’s 16 nuclear reactors, not to mention Russia’s dependence on Ukraine for energy export to Europe. Such mutually beneficial interests are now potentially jeopardized by the present crisis.

With respect to Crimea, it is noteworthy that even a pro-Russia plebiscite next week does not resolve the issue of Sevastopol, which is not part of the Crimean autonomous republic per the Ukrainian constitution, but rather a special administered city. Therefore, Moscow will still face the issue of legitimacy of its military takeover of the city in the aftermath of March 16th vote. This vote may trigger a similar separatist momentum in eastern Ukraine, an economic basket case, which Russia certainly does not want to inherit by any economic rationale.

On the other hand, if this crisis drags on and relations between Russia and West sours further, Kiev may opt for closer NATO cooperation, in which case Russia might retaliate by moving into eastern Ukraine and thus causing the country’s split in the middle. Much depends on US and NATO’s strategy, which has been so far one of relentless expansion in eastern and central Europe, not to mention the stating of anti-missile system in Poland and Czech Republic considered a ‘first strike’ threat by Moscow, despite the official justification in terms of potential Iranian missile threat.

With the prior deterioration of Russia-NATO dialogue since last year, the stage had been set for the current crisis, with the semi-armed “regime change” in Kiev acting as a catalyst for the qualitative turn for the worse presently witnessed before our eyes. Moscow’s perception of the crisis, as a “preventive intervention,” fuels their strategy, which cannot and should not be ignored by the West. A great deal more western sensitivity to Russia’s national security concerns and worries is called for, which unfortunately has been markedly missing in the post-Soviet NATO strategy. A serious NATO reconsideration of its overtly anti-Russian policy is called for, and yet the alliance appears to be moving in the opposite direction, thus setting the stage for a highly dangerous crisis.

Kaveh Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of several books on Iran’s foreign policy. His writings have appeared on several online and print publications, including UN Chronicle, New York Times, Der Tagesspiegel, Middle East Journal, Harvard International Review, and Brown’s Journal of World Affairs, Guardian, Russia Today, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Mediterranean Affairs, Nation, Telos, Der Tageszeit, Hamdard Islamicus, Iranian Journal of International Affairs, Global Dialogue.

The article Ukraine Crisis Prevention: An Iranian Perspective appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Three Conferences To Focus On Nuke-Free World – Analysis

0
0

By IDN

By Jamshed Baruah

As tension mounts in relations between the U.S. and Russia on Ukraine amid apprehensions of a nuclear fallout, three international conferences scheduled for April 2014 have acquired added significance in promoting efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The first in the series is a meeting of foreign ministers on April 11-12 in Hiroshima, nearly two months after the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Mexico. It will be followed by an inter-faith conference organised by the Tokyo-based Soka Gakkai International (SGI) on April 24 in Washington. From April 28 to May 9 the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will hold its third session at the United Nations in New York.

The PrepCom is purported to prepare for the Review Conference in terms of assessing the implementation of each article of the NPT and facilitating discussion among States with a view to making recommendations to the Review Conference. The NPT, which entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995, requires that review conferences be held every five years. The Treaty is regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.

NPDI

Promoting a world without nuclear weapons is also the objective of the Hiroshima ministerial meeting, which is part of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), backed by a coalition of states with Japan and Australia taking the lead. The coalition came into being in an effort to help implement the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, adopted by consensus.

Composed of Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, the NPDI has issued a series of declarations concerning the pace of NPT negotiations and the need to swiftly move on both non-proliferation and disarmament.

At its ministerial meeting in the Hague in April 2013, the NPDI resolved to “actively contribute to the work of the PrepCom including by submitting, for further elaboration by all State Parties, working papers on reducing the role of nuclear weapons, non-strategic nuclear weapons, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban-Treaty (CTBT), the wider application of safeguards, nuclear weapons-free zones and export controls as well as an update of last year’s working paper on disarmament and non-proliferation education”.

The resolution added: “We also firmly believe that universalization and early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) are essential steps to achieve nuclear disarmament. We welcome the ratification of the Treaty this year by Brunei Darussalam and Chad, bringing the total of ratifications to 159. . . . We appeal urgently to all countries that have not yet become Parties, in particular to the remaining eight States listed in Annex II of the Treaty, to sign and ratify the CTBT without further delay.”

Further: “The Nuclear Weapon States have a particular responsibility to encourage ratification of the CTBT and we call on them to take the initiative in this regard. Pending the entry into force of the Treaty, we call upon all States to refrain from nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions.”

‘Three Preventions’ and ‘Three Reductions’

The importance of the Hiroshima ministerial conference was underlined by Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida in a speech at the Nagasaki University on January 20, 2014. Kishida was born in Hiroshima, the first city to have been victimized by the first nuclear bomb ever deployed.

Kishida said, ‘Three Preventions’ and ‘Three Reductions’ were the centerpiece of Japan’s “basic thinking towards a world free of nuclear weapons”. The former are: “(1) prevention of the emergence of new nuclear weapon states, (2) prevention of the proliferation of nuclear-weapons-related materials and technologies, and (3) prevention of nuclear terrorism.” The constitute: “(1) reduction of the number of nuclear weapons, (2) reduction of the role of nuclear weapons, and (3) reduction of the incentive for possession of nuclear weapons.”

Interfaith conference

Implementation of such measures calls for active participation of the global civil society, says SGI President Daisaku Ikeda. “Where there is an absence of international political leadership, civil society should step in to fill the gap, providing the energy and vision needed to move the world in a new and better direction.”

“I believe that we need a paradigm shift, a recognition that the essence of leadership is found in ordinary individuals – whoever and wherever they may be – standing up and fulfilling the role that is theirs alone to play,” he adds.

Ikeda writes in his 2013 Peace Proposal: “It is necessary to challenge the underlying inhumanity of the idea that the needs of states can justify the sacrifice of untold numbers of human lives and disruption of the global ecology. At the same time, we feel that nuclear weapons serve as a prism through which to bring into sharper focus ecological integrity, economic development and human rights – issues that our contemporary world cannot afford to ignore. This in turn helps us identify the elements that will shape the contours of a new, sustainable society, one in which all people can live in dignity.”

Against this backdrop, an interfaith conference, initiated by SGI in Washington – the seat of the U.S. Administration and Congress – is of great importance.

Third PrepCom

Of crucial significance is the third PrepCom for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT. Hiroshima and Nagasaki will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings in 2015. This and the G8 Summit in 2016 would, according to SGI President Ikeda, be an appropriate opportunity for an expanded summit for a nuclear-weapon-free world, which in his view should include the additional participation of representatives of the UN and non-G8 states in possession of nuclear weapons, as well as members of the five existing NWFZs – Antarctic Treaty, Latin American NWFZ (Tlatelolco Treaty), South Pacific NWFZ (Rarotonga Treaty), Southeast Asia NWFZ (Bangkok treaty), and African NWFZ (Pelindaba Treaty) – and other states which have taken a lead in calling for nuclear abolition.

Addressing the opening of the 2014 session of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament (CD) on January 21 in Geneva. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that there has been no breakthrough yet. “The pervasive cycle of pessimism in this body must still be overcome or else the CD will be overtaken by events,” he said.

Sharing his thoughts on a possible way forward, the UN chief said that while the CD continues to seek the path towards renewed disarmament negotiations, it is important that it develop treaty frameworks and proposals through structured discussions. “Laying such a foundation for future negotiations would be a concrete first step towards revalidating the relevance of the Conference,” he noted, adding that he hopes the body can make good progress before this spring’s third preparatory meeting for the 2015 NPT Review Conference.

The vital significance of the third PrepCom is underlined by the fact that Egypt decided to withdraw from the second session in April 2013, in protest against “the continued failure of the conference” to implement a 1995 resolution to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. Egypt’s Foreign Affairs ministry highlighted that the decision to postpone a conference to establish a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East violated the decision made in the 2010 NPT conference to hold the conference in 2012. The ministry added that this “may affect the credibility of the NPT system”.

The conference was originally scheduled to take place in 2012, but was postponed by the four sponsors, the UN, the United States, Russia and Britain because not all states in the region – Israel above all – has not agreed to attend.

In its statement the ministry accused “some of the parties to the NPT, as well as some non-state parties” of hindering the establishment of the conference. It added that Egypt has sought the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone since the launch of the initiative at the United Nations in 1974. It called on the member states of the treaty, the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the international community to uphold their responsibility in implementing resolutions.

The article Three Conferences To Focus On Nuke-Free World – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Al Qaeda-Indian Mujahideen Alliance Spells Trouble For Pakistan – Analysis

0
0

By Geopolitical Monitor

By Balasubramaniyan Viswanathan

Recent revelations pointing to links between Al Qaeda and the Indian Mujahideen have surprised many counter terrorism experts. These revelations have largely come in the form of a charge sheet filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of India, stating that the Indian Mujahideen leadership has been on the lookout for an opportunity to establish links with Al Qaeda and the Pakistan Taliban.

This alliance, if it takes shape or has already materialized, will have huge ramifications for the security and stability of the South Asian region as a whole. Unequivocally, this development would be pertinent to policymakers in India as it would directly impact the country’s internal security. However, apart from India, there would be another country with cause for concern: Pakistan.

Pakistan has been at the center of the war on terror owing to its proximity to Afghanistan. It is also home to different fundamentalist and terrorist constituents who have varied interests and objectives. They are can be broadly divided as follows:

Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have used Pakistani territory in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) for sanctuary or as a strategic retreat when faced with NATO operations in Afghanistan. Their primary objective is to overthrow the Afghan government.

Pakistan Taliban. The Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP), better known as the Pakistan Taliban, is based in and around the Waziristan area. Their main objective is to overthrow the Pakistani state.

Kashmiri Militants. Groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) are some of the more prominent groups whose interest is geared towards jihad in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Their principle objective is to “liberate” Kashmir from India.

Given the existence of groups with such divergent objectives, Pakistan has been known to support some groups with various ideological bents in one way or another. However, Pakistan has more consistently supported non-state actors from the Kashmiri coterie as an unofficial foreign policy measure against India.

On the other hand, Pakistan was instrumental in supporting the Afghan Taliban prior to the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the only countries which recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan. However, Pakistan’s honeymoon with the Taliban ended soon after the 9/11 attacks; even if elements within the Pakistani armed forces are still sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda cause. An ample testimony to this is the discovery of Osama bin laden in Abbottabad, located in northeastern Pakistan. Common sense dictates that this would not have been possible without some official Pakistani help. These instances point to assistance from certain influential pockets within the Pakistani government, who are opposed to the US-led war on terror and have tacitly supported these groups in all forms.

The US focus is predominantly on the Afghan region and areas dominated by the Pakistan Taliban in Pakistan’s western frontier. US cooperation with the Pakistani government is against Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and the Pakistan Taliban, all of which threaten US interests. At the same time, The United States has outlawed Kashmiri Jihadi groups like LeT, HM, and JeM. Notwithstanding the ban on Kashmiri groups, these outfits have continued to thrive thanks to tacit support from elements of the Pakistani government.

Given this backdrop, the current nexus between Al Qaeda and Indian Mujahideen is bound to upset Pakistani plans towards India. The underlying principle buttressing this theory is manifold, including: the clash of ideology between various jihadi outfits in Pakistan; lower recruitment for Kashmiri-based jihadi groups; non-availability of plausible deniability or arms-length alibi; and the burden of breeding a new homegrown group in India.

Pakistan has been riddled with conflicts between various jihadi groups due to their ideological divide. On one side of the ideological divide are groups fighting in Afghanistan like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and deobandi-driven Pakistan Taliban, which aids and abets the former two. On the other side are the groups like LeT, JeM and HM which fight in Kashmir. The most prominent among the Kashmiri groups is the LeT which is driven by Ahl-e-Hadith ideology of Islam, in direct contrast to the deobandi school of Islam practiced by the Afghan groups. These ideological divisions have led to deep schisms on whether to participate in the Kashmiri jihad or the one in Afghanistan.

These divisions have intensified the attrition levels of hardcore jihadi fighters from the Kashmiri conflict to the Afghan theatre. For instance, two important LeT members, namely Major Abdul Rahman who was heading the Karachi setup in LeT and Major Haroon in charge of training LeT cadres, deserted LeT in order to fight in the Afghanistan conflict. Both have served in the Pakistani army and have refused to fight the Taliban during the war on terror. Such insubordination stands testimony to their hardcore jihadi mentality which is by no means exhaustive in the Pakistani army establishment. Thus, this ideological divide expedited the process of jihadi exits from Kashmir-centric groups. This in turn diluted the strength and focus of the existing Pakistan-supported Kashmir-centric groups like the LeT, JeM, HM, thus negating the leverage which Pakistan has over India on the Kashmir issue. Such was the desperation of the LeT and Pakistan’s ISI, that in order to hold LeT together, spectacular attacks such as the 26/11 Mumbai assault were orchestrated. LeT scaled up the enormity of the 26/11 Mumbai assault from a two-member team to a ten-member team, choosing multiple targets instead of the original solitary target. This was done in order to appeal to the jihadis, lift their sagging morale, and also veer them away from the Afghan conflict. Another benefit which Pakistan reaped from the Mumbai attack is that the spectacular nature of the attack diverted attention away from Pakistan’s own domestic issues.

Pakistan has been using the Indian Mujahideen to fill the gap created by these jihadi outfits and regain lost momentum against India. While the Indian Mujahideen has been instrumental in conducting at least ten attacks across India in the last eight years, LeT has conducted only three attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai assault, and JeM only one.

Al Qaeda, considerably weakened by US operations, has outsourced its terror strategy to a series of affiliates. Reports indicate that Al Qaeda may train Indian Mujahideen cadres in return for their facilitation in moving arms to Myanmar. Al Qaeda would gain access to a new theatre in Myanmar by using Indian Mujahideen as a bridge. In turn, Indian Mujahideen could gain from Al Qaeda’s tactical expertise.

Pakistani nervousness over such an alliance is palpable. According to the interrogation statement of David Coleman Headley, Pakistan has been preventing the integration of Kashmiri jihadi outfits like LeT with Afghan-based outfits. This is again corroborated by Yasin Bhatkal, the co-founder of Indian Mujahideen, who was arrested last year. Bhatkal in his interrogation report has stated that Pakistan’s ISI has warned Indian Mujahideen against any connections with Al Qaeda. A possible explanation to this could be to insulate Kashmiri-based groups from a possible US action by virtue of their association with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Conclusion

The alliance between Al Qaeda and Indian Mujahideen is a marriage of convenience, where al Qaeda needs a new theatre and the Indian Mujahideen needs new expertise to escalate its attacks. This is consistent with Al Qaeda’s principle of integrating new theatres like Iraq, Syria and Somalia etc. If it bears fruit, this would be Al Qaeda’s first ingress into the Indian subcontinent. In return, Indian Mujahideen would gain strategic depth. Hence, the nexus between Al Qaeda and Indian Mujahideen is a definite force multiplier for both these entities.

The Bodh Gaya (a sacred place for Buddhists) blasts last year in India appear to tacitly reflect such an arrangement, though it cannot be confirmed independently. This could be a retribution attack arranged under this alliance, protesting the suffering of Rohingyas in Myanmar. Regardless of whether the alliance is in place now or in future, it would leave policymakers in India desperate to break it up as quickly as possible. At the same time, even more so than in India, it would be Pakistan hoping that the alliance falls apart.

Balasubramaniyan Viswanathan is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com

The article Al Qaeda-Indian Mujahideen Alliance Spells Trouble For Pakistan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Venezuela Breaks Relations With Panama As Its Economy Shivers – OpEd

0
0

By Peter Tase

Bilateral relations between Venezuela and Panama reached their lowest point, after the statement made by President Maduro in March 5, 2014, when he accused Panama’s leader, Ricardo Martinelli of orchestrating foreign interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela, when the latter called upon the Organization of American States to look into the recent political turmoil in Caracas.

Such a diplomatic break down will show its immediate economic consequences by affecting the people of Venezuela and the country’s overall trade and industry.

In Venezuela, consumer products are reaching their lowest supply levels in its markets as well as revenues and citizens’ incomes are being hit hard by inflation and a very weak economy. Only last month’s production, supply of commodities was reduced to 28 percent.

Steve H. Hanke, a renowned U.S. economist at the CATO Institute, has the following assessment: “a hallmark of socialism and interventionism is failure. Venezuela is compelling proof of this, having spent the past half century going down the tubes. Indeed, in the 1950’s, it was one of Latin America’s most well off countries. No more. Now it is a basket case – a failed state that’s descending into chaos…After all, Venezuela’s combined reserves of oil and gas are second only to Iran’s. Well, it might have reserves, but thanks to the wrongheaded policies of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is the only major energy producer that has seen its production fall over the past quarter of a century.” [1]

For Larry Birns, director and founder of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “During the presidency of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela led the way in the creation of Latin American organizations that championed regional independence and integration. Through CELAC, UNASUR, and ALBA Latin America came together in new organizations that speficically excluded the United States and Canada. The OAS therefore stood at the crossroads during its closed – door discussions in Washington [in March 7]: continued relevance or obsolescence. CELAC had already issued a statement insisting that the region be a zone of peace and mutual respect among nations, and next week UNASUR is likely to declare its solidarity with the Venezuelan government. Therefore, OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza’s leadership in drawing together the support for this important declaration was vital for maintaining OAS significance in inter-American affairs.” [2]

Indeed, according to Roberta Stabile, “Venezuela is a country that practically operates only with imported products, because its domestic products are not enough in order to fully satisfy the consumers’ demand across the country.”  Imported products that come from Panama reach over 30 percent of the total amount of commodities being shipped to Venezuela. [3]

According to Francisco Chirinos, a Venezuelan economist, “[Maduro’s] decision was a wrong move and in a very unsuitable time, because Panama and Venezuela have strong commercial relations for more than forty years; there were pending loan accounts that reached around US$ 2 billion, which have to be paid to the Panamanian private sector. Venezuela due to its currency crisis and its national reserves have reached its lowest levels historically, has recently encountered many obstacles to pay these loans.”
For Mr. Chirinos “it would be impossible for Venezuela to pay back these loans, due to the fact that its national treasury is in a greater shortage of foreign currency, by breaking these relations, for political reasons, this implicates that these accounts will be suspended as well as the purchase of Panamanian products will be interrupted.”

Now such trade and commercial transactions are expected to flourish with other regional nations such as Brazil and Argentina. One thing is certain that if the current political crisis persists, Venezuelan markets will subsequently be empty as well as food supplies will experience a major price hike in the weeks and months ahead.

On the other hand, Venezuela was the 14th largest goods and services trading partner to the United States, totaling US$ 62 billion in 2011. U.S. exports totaled US$ 18 billion and imported products from Venezuela reached US$ 44 billion. [4]

Just like Panama, the United States has called upon President Nicolas Maduro to renounce violence, respect democratic values, standards as well as the freedom of expression in the recent protests led by national leaders of the opposition party and majority of university students. Trade ties between United States and Venezuela are also expected to shrink. Especially when President Nicolas Maduro blamed the “fascist right” for anti-government protests, that were allegedly backed by the United States and Colombian former President Alvaro Uribe, in order to encourage a plot for his dismissal. [5]

The abrupt disruption of political relations with Panama made it impossible for Venezuela to renegotiate its pending terms and conditions on the pending loans it has to pay to its neighboring country.

President Maduro’s statements will be followed by concrete actions that will cause a deep fracture in the commercial relations between both countries; additionally Venezuelan businesses will not be able to conduct commercial exchanges in the Free Trade Zone of Colón.  As a result reduction of consumer products in Venezuelan grocery markets will reach a shortage greater than 30 percent, in the next months.

For Teodoro Bellorín, President of the Chamber of Commerce in Margarita, “this will be another challenge in addition to the negative liquidation of foreign currency, from private imports on behalf of the government. Economic Crisis has deteriorated in the Caribbean nation, not only because of the shortage but also due to such a bilateral commercial disruption with Panama.”  There are strategic bilateral commercial relations among many suppliers in the Free Trade zone of Colón; 70 percent of Venezuela’s imported products, are purchased and transported from Panama’s ports.

From an economics point of view this is not suitable to Venezuela; it has no reasons to break relations with Panama, a country which has the highest percentage of commodities being shipped from its territory to Venezuelan consumers and market. These political actions bring no benefits to Caracas’ economic policies and further ruin its currency’s inflation rate.

According to Prof. José Ramón Acosta, a renowned Venezuelan economist, “from Maduro’s recent measures the consequences will not be suffered by the Panamanian people, unfortunately Venezuelans will feel a tremendous pain. The economic situation is precipitating from bad to worse, because the country has a centralized economy and controls the markets, inflation rate and price and this is what is generating a deep shortage.”

Prof. Acosta highlights that “there is an important element which is a default on the part of Venezuelan government, the break of relations was just smoke in the glass to distract the public from its government’s inability of making payments on time to Panama’s government.”

[1] http://www.cato.org/blog/venezuelas-plunging-petroleum-production
[2] http://www.coha.org/the-council-on-hemispheric-affairs-applauds-oas-solidarity-with-venezuela/
[3] http://elcomerciomovil.com/web/economia/economia-nacional/economia-a-un-ano-sin-chavez-estamos-cosechando-las-irresponsabilidades-de-las-politicas-gubernamentales/
[4] http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/venezuela
[5] http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2014/02/21/Argentina-Brazil-said-to-fret-over-Venezuela-spillover/UPI-43461393013376/#ixzz2vzqqsf1N

The article Venezuela Breaks Relations With Panama As Its Economy Shivers – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela And Beyond: Beware The Wars Of March – OpEd

0
0

By Rick Rozoff

In the 1930s it was a notorious fact the German government of Adolf Hitler chose the month of March to perpetrate its most daring moves in reasserting the nation as a continental power, culminating in the most deadly war in history.

For example:

March 1933:
German federal election brings Hitler to power as chancellor

March 1936:
Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles

March 1937:
The Third Reich’s Condor Legion bombs and attacks Durango, Spain and the next month bombs Guernica

March 1938:
Germany absorbs Austria

Over the past fifteen years a not dissimilar pattern has emerged.

In March of 1999 the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization began Operation Allied Force, the 78-day air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In March of 2003 the U.S. and several of its NATO allies began Operation Iraqi Freedom, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, ultimately with troops from 23 of NATO’s current 28 member states stationed in the country.

In March of 2011 the U.S. launched Operation Odyssey Dawn, nineteen days later taken over by NATO under the code name of Operation Unified Protector, a more than six-and-a-half-month-long air war and naval blockade against Libya.

The above were the first wars ever conducted by NATO and were, respectively, its first wars in three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa.

In the unbroken series of direct, covert and proxy wars waged by the U.S. and NATO since the attack on Yugoslavia on March 24, 1999, the following nations and former nations have been seriously, more than likely fatally, wounded. Destroyed.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (subsequently the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, now splintered into three entities)

Macedonia

Afghanistan (what was left of it after the U.S. and several of its NATO allies supported a fundamentalist-extremist insurgency operating out of Pakistan from 1978-1992 and then backhandedly supported the Taliban takeover in 1995-1996)

Iraq
Somalia
Ivory Coast
Libya
Yemen
Syria
Sudan
Mali
Ukraine

The article Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela And Beyond: Beware The Wars Of March – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Where Is Flight 370? – OpEd

0
0

By Arab News

By Bikram Vohra

Do you get the feeling that Flight 370 has literally fallen off the radar? Five days later except for the anguish and agony of the next of kin of the 239 on board and the ripple effect of that loss, no one really wants to hold the ball.

Like a bizarre game of musical chairs they are passing the parcel from one to another. More like a hot potato. The airline expresses its limitations in the search. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) says it’s the responsibility of the police and immigration to track down false passport users.

The New York Times says the plane could have flown under the radar for five hours, which could put anywhere in half of Asia and the Far East. Now they have widened the search to cover the Andaman Islands and the Indian coastline. Boeing seems categorical that the aircraft’s integrity could not have failed so catastrophically. Even if the twin engines had stopped simultaneously that plane could have glided for twenty minutes.

Political savvy seems to be a card trumping everything else. The theories are as thick as a snow flurry and some are outlandish. But somewhere on this planet is a 777 with 239 souls on board, dead or alive, and the world seems to have forgotten all about them. The Chinese profess to it not having entered their airspace.

Eyewitnesses have seen an aircraft flying low but no eyewitness has been shown. People say the mobile phones were ringing but no one has come forward. A relative of one of the passengers said that he called his cousin 50 minutes after the flight went missing. So, none of the theories have any basis in fact and all the governments and the manufacturers and their subsidiaries are running for the chairs even though the music stopped five days ago.

And as fragile as human nature is and often twisted we are now almost placing Flight 370 in the same unsolved mystery category of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart or the ships that vanished in the Bermuda Triangle and we’d be a tad disappointed if the wreckage suddenly came up.

No one is seriously giving answers to the basic questions.

  • Did the aircraft vector off course and make any turn?
  • Did the captain send out any signal indicating any problem? Has anyone analyzed his voice for stress or tension from the ATC records?
  • Has Malaysian authorities tried to verify those eerie mobile rings?
  • Has anyone spotted any strip of land anywhere in that area which could have been a makeshift strip?
  • What are those satellites doing up there?

The pussyfooting we are witnessing is directly linked to the possibility of it being a terrorist attack and no one wants to go there and be found guilty of acts of omission and commission. Back off seems to be the silent agreement. No one wants to discuss how explosives got onto the aircraft. Who brought them?

Above all, who was the target? A person? A government? A country?

The article Where Is Flight 370? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Around 95% Of Crimeans In Referendum Voted To Join Russia – Report

0
0

By RT

Around 95 percent of voters in the Crimean referendum have answered ‘yes’ to the autonomous republic joining Russia and less than 5 percent of the vote participants want the region to remain part of Ukraine, according to preliminary results.

With around 50 percent of the votes already counted, preliminary result show that 95.5 percent of voters said ‘yes’ to the reunion of the republic with Russia as a constituent unit of the Russian Federation. In Sevastopol, the number of those who voted ‘yes’ stands at 93 percent, according to the head of the Sevastopol commission, Valery Medvedev.

The preliminary results of the popular vote were announced during a meeting in the center of Sevastopol, the city that hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

The overall voter turnout in the referendum on the status of Crimea is 81,37%, according to the head of the Crimean parliament’s commission on the referendum, Mikhail Malyshev.

Over a half of the Tatars living in the port city took part in the referendum, with the majority of them voting in favor of joining Russia, reports Itar-Tass citing a representative of the Tatar community Lenur Usmanov.

About 40% of Crimean Tatars went to polling stations on Sunday, the republic’s prime minister Sergey Aksyonov said.

In Simferopol, the capital of the republic, at least 15,000 have gathered to celebrate the referendum in central Lenin square and people reportedly keep arriving. Demonstrators, waving Russian and Crimean flags, were watching a live concert while waiting for the announcement of preliminary results of the voting.

International observers are planning to present their final declaration on the Crimean referendum on March 17, the head of the monitors’ commission, Polish MP Mateush Piskorski told journalists. He added that the voting was held in line with international norms and standards.

Next week, Crimea will officially introduce the ruble as a second official currency along with Ukrainian hryvna, Aksyonov told Interfax. In his words, the dual currency will be in place for about six months.

Overall, the republic’s integration into Russia will take up to a year, the Prime Minister said, adding that it could be done faster. However, they want to maintain relations with “economic entities, including Ukraine,” rather than burn bridges.

Moscow is closely monitoring the vote count in Crimea, said Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Karasin.

“The results of the referendum will be considered once they are drawn up,” he told Itar-Tass.

The decision to hold a referendum was made after the bloody uprising in Kiev which ousted President Vladimir Yanukovich from power. Crimea – which is home to an ethnic Russian majority population – refused to recognize the coup-appointed government as legitimate. Crimeans feared that the new leadership would not represent their interests and respect rights. Crimeans were particularly unhappy over parliament’s decision to revoke the law allowing using minority languages – including Russian – as official along with the Ukrainian tongue. Crimeans staged mass anti-Maidan protests and asked Russia to protect them.

The article Around 95% Of Crimeans In Referendum Voted To Join Russia – Report appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukraine: US Pulls Back, Agrees To Russian Demands – OpEd

0
0

By Oriental Review

There was another phone call today between Secretary of State Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. The call came after a strategy meeting on Ukraine in the White House. During the call Kerry agreed to Russian demands for a federalization of the Ukraine in which the federal states will have a strong autonomy against a neutralized central government. Putin had offered this “off-ramp” from the escalation and Obama has taken it.

The Russian announcement:

Lavrov, Kerry agree to work on constitutional reform in Ukraine

(Reuters) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry agreed on Sunday to seek a solution to crisis in Ukraine by pushing for constitutional reforms there, the Russian foreign ministry said.It did not go into details on the kind of reforms needed except to say they should come “in a generally acceptable form and while taking into the account the interests of all regions of Ukraine“.

“Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry agreed to continue work to find a resolution on Ukraine through a speedy launch of constitutional reform with the support of international community,” the ministry said in a statement.

The idea of a “constitutional reform” is from the Russians documented in a Russian “non-paper”.

It describes the process of getting to a new Ukrainian constitution and sets some parameters for it. The Russian language will be again official language next to the Ukrainian, the regions will have high autonomy, there will be no interferences in church affairs and the Ukraine will stay politically and militarily neutral. Any autonomy decision by the Crimea would be accepted. This would all be guaranteed by a “Support Group for Ukraine” consisting of the US, EU and Russia and would be cemented in an UN Security Council resolution.

It seems that Kerry and Obama have largely accepted these parameters. They are now, of course, selling this solution as their own which is, as the “non-paper” proves, not the reality.

Here is Kerry suddenly “urging Russia” to accept the things Russia had demanded and which Kerry had earlier never mentioned:

Secretary of State John Kerry called on Moscow to return its troops in Crimea to their bases, pull back forces from the Ukraine border, halt incitement in eastern Ukraine and support the political reforms in Ukraine that would protect ethnic Russians, Russian speakers and others in the former Soviet Republic that Russia says it is concerned about.In a phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, their second since unsuccessful face-to-face talks on Friday in London, Kerry urged Russia “to support efforts by Ukrainians across the spectrum to address power sharing and decentralization through a constitutional reform process that is broadly inclusive and protects the rights of minorities,” the State Department said.

As it looks now Obama has given up. The U.S. plot to snatch the Ukraine from Russia and to integrate it into NATO and the EU seems to have failed. Russia taking Crimea and having 93% of the voters there agree to join Russia has made the main objective of the U.S. plans, to kick the Russians out of Sevastopol and thereby out of the Middle East, impossible.

The Russian (non public) threat to also immediately take the eastern and southern provinces from the Ukraine has pushed the U.S. into agreeing to the Russian conditions mentioned above. The only alternative to that would be a military confrontation which the U.S. and Europeans are not willing to risk. Despite the anti-Russian campaign in the media a majority of U.S. people as well as EU folks are against any such confrontation. The U.S. never held the cards it needed to win this game.

Should all go well and a new Ukrainian constitution fit the Russian conditions the “west” may well be allowed to pay for the monthly bills Gazprom will keep sending to Kiev.

It will take some time to implement all of this. What dirty tricks will the neocons in Washington now try to prevent this outcome?

Source: M of A

The article Ukraine: US Pulls Back, Agrees To Russian Demands – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Crimea: Annexation And Recognition, The Legal Battles Ahead

0
0

By RFE RL

By Ron Synovitz

(RFE/RL) — As Crimea was preparing for just-completed voting in its regional referendum on whether to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, lawmakers in Kyiv scrambled to strengthen legal hurdles bolstering their argument that the referendum was illegal.

The Ukrainian parliament in Kyiv voted on March 15 to dissolve the Crimean Supreme Council, the regional parliament on the peninsula.

So how could Kyiv’s move to dissolve the Crimean parliament affect the legality of a possible annexation of Crimea by Russia?

The move appears to be aimed at strengthening Kyiv’s argument under international law.

“Under international law, for any part of a country to secede, it has to go through whatever constitutional processes are set up in that country to enable it to secede,” Barry Kellman, a professor of international law at DePaul University in Chicago and director of the school’s International Weapons Control Center, explains. “The Kyiv action is relevant to that. It speaks to whether or not the Crimean referendum is constitutional under Ukrainian law.”

Dissolving the regional parliament in Crimea could strengthen Kyiv’s argument that Crimean secession violates international law because it violates Ukraine’s constitution.

At the same time, the dissolution of Crimea’s regional parliament could be seen as an attempt by Kyiv to counter proposed legislation in Russia’s Duma that would be required for the Kremlin to annex Crimea.

Currently, there are legal barriers under Russian constitutional law that must be removed before the Kremlin can take the step of annexation.

Duma lawmakers addressed those hurdles in a draft bill that is expected to have its first reading by March 17. That legislation would allow Moscow to accept “a part of a foreign country” into the Russian Federation “if the decision was approved or in accordance with a request from the organs of state power of that part of the foreign country.”

The draft bill also says any request to join Russia must be approved by “a referendum conducted in accordance with the laws of the foreign state in the territory of that part of the foreign state.”

That means Crimea’s regional authorities must approve the results of the March 16 referendum for Russia to agree to annexation.

Early exit polling showed overwhelming support for Crimea to join the Russian Federation. Crimea’s parliament said it planned to approve the vote as soon as possible after official results were announced.

From Kyiv’s perspective, dissolving Crimea’s parliament before the March 16 referendum allows Ukrainian authorities to argue that a Crimean annexation request fails to meet the requirements of the Duma’s draft bill because it was not carried out by “regional organs of state power.”

Duma lawmakers said they would consider the draft bill after the results of Crimea’s referendum were announced and after Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his recommendation on the issue.

Kellman concludes that the Duma’s draft legislation and any arguments emerging from Moscow about Russian law in the days ahead are irrelevant under international law.

“The Russian legislation — the Duma legislation – is of no legal significance outside of Russia,” Kellman says. “If it clears a Russian constitutional hurdle, from an international perspective, it’s just irrelevant. Their constitutionality has no bearing on the legality of the annexation as a matter [of law] outside of Russia.”

But Kellman also says there is no practical way to enforce international law if Russia choses to annex Crimea following the referendum.

“That’s extremely difficult because the typical answer would be through UN Security Council action. But, of course, Russia holds a veto on the Security Council. So that’s a nonstarter,” Kellman says. “So, in truth, there is no way to enforce that. The problem, from Russia’s standpoint, is with recognition. Will anyone other than Russia recognize Crimea as a part of Russia? The reality is that they can take it over and, after a while, yes, it does become a fait accompli. Take a look at China’s takeover of Tibet. This is not a legal process. This is a process of exerting military power.”

On March 16, Putin told German Chancellor Angela Merkel by telephone that Moscow would “respect” the choice of Crimean voters. The Kremlin says Putin told Merkel that Russia believes the referendum in Crimea does comply with international law.

The United States and the European Union have condemned the referendum as illegal and have threatened economic and political consequences for Russia if Moscow takes further action to seize control of Crimea.

The article Crimea: Annexation And Recognition, The Legal Battles Ahead appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images