By Jakub Grygiel

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an unwelcome reminder of time-tested realities that we have been tempted to forget over the past two decades. These realities, namely that history is written by men, that force must be met with force, and that wars are rarely local affairs, appear throughout history and are undoubtedly unpleasant because they do not lead to sunny optimism. It is not surprising therefore that we prefer to ignore them. But we ignore them also because of an arresting naïveté about the world and a perennial wish to see an irresistible march toward freedom in history. The now notorious statement by Secretary of State John Kerry that Russia is behaving “in a 19^th century fashion” – suggesting that Moscow has failed to adapt to modern, or post-modern, times – is indicative of this worldview.

Unfortunately, the violent reminder of Ukraine seems not to have altered this worldview. Current administration officials as well as many opinion writers continue to dwell in their pleasant and surreal beliefs in a novel “21^st century world” that must be fundamentally different from the previous thousands of years of human history. The result is a strategic approach that aims to sweep away the problem at hand: Crimea is seen as a small, local speed bump in an otherwise uninterrupted historical drive toward peace, prosperity, and “interconnectedness.” The “global network” of trade, financial flows, labor mobility, and exchanges of ideas will in the end prevail, defeating Putin’s antiquated strategies. The 21^st century strategy to deal with his 19^th century behavior is to wait and avoid any move that may escalate the situation further. To put it in different words, Western leaders seem to be seeking a diplomatic success without a military success, believing that the supposed new powers of a globalized world (e.g., limited sanctions, diplomatic “time-outs” in the form of suspensions from G-8, long-term energy policies) can arrest armored columns and reverse Russian territorial gains.

Such a strategy may work in the long run, measured in decades or centuries. But for the rest of us, living here and now, it is an exceedingly dangerous strategy. Ukraine is a quasi-failed state, with part of its territory already annexed, part under imminent threat of invasion, and part being destabilized by subversion and propaganda. The fall of Ukraine actively destabilizes the eastern frontier of Europe, and thus, reignites a region that the U.S. deemed secure and not in need of further expenditure of resources and attention. The march of freedom and security will require more than just waiting for history to take its course.

It is important therefore to start from the basic realities that the war in Ukraine is bringing back to our attention and that we are tempted to ignore. With the help of FPRI’s founder, Robert Strausz-Hupé, here they are.

The first reality that we tend to forget is that history is made by men, not by impersonal forces. What this means is that there is no clear and irresistible progressive direction in it. Men can change history’s course for the better, but often for the worse. A powerful leader, with imperial aspirations or simply a Napoleonic ego, can decide to invade a country, even if most of the bien-pensant world élites think Davos receptions reflect the new harmonious global relations. As Robert Strausz-Hupé observed, “World history is not a succession of happy endings.” We do have strong and willful enemies who will use every opportunity to undermine and weaken us and our friends, and who want to defeat us and our world view. These enemies, Strausz-Hupé continued, “can surely not be defeated by the incantation of optimistic formulas such as the inevitable victory of democracy over totalitarianism, of high-standard-of-living peoples over low-standard-of-living peoples, of a high-class technology over a somewhat lower-class technology, and of good over evil men.”[1] Russian troops in Crimea, and the armored columns along Ukraine’s eastern border, are a reminder that there is nothing – not democracy, not wealth, not globalization – inevitable in history.

The second forgotten reality is related to the first one. We tend to believe that we can win simply because of passing time, as history moves inexorably toward the desired objective. There is therefore little need to oppose an enemy with force: rumbling tanks will be defeated by the allure of democracy and the spread of globalization. Moreover, once a victory has been achieved, our belief is that the outcome is settled, firmly written in history. This belief is most visible in Europe, where over the past two decades we have witnessed the alleged visible sign of such a victory of history: Europe is free, secure, and wealthy, and above all, no serious threat is capable of altering that.

This, of course, is not true. It never was, but the war in Ukraine made it abundantly clear. Europe from London to Kiev is not secure. Again, to quote Robert Strausz-Hupé from the early 1950s: “Europe is debated ground. Upon it is renewed the struggle that Europe waged unceasingly from antiquity to the threshold of her greatest age: the struggle against Asia. As in the past, the menace of Asia presses now upon a Europe that is plunged into a general malaise compounded of lassitude of power and the alienation of society.”[2] The fragility of the European peace, threatened by the westward push of Putin’s Russia, is again made evident.

Finally, third, we have been lulled into believing that a local war is simply that, local. The post-modern faith in the gradual disappearance of violent conflict leads us to see wars as little localized bursts among peoples and nations who have been lagging in the march of history. Russia’s war in Ukraine is, in this view, a small local vestige of ancient thinking, destined to remain limited to that area. It’s a small island of 19^th century behavior amidst a sea of 21^st century thinking – or so we are led to believe.

In reality, all wars are local, and all local wars have global connotations. World wars did not start globally, but in very precise places, often with the widespread belief that they would be limited to that locale. Think Corcyra for the Peloponnesian War or Sarajevo in 1914, or Central Europe (Sudetenland) in 1938-39. Sure, these are historical analogies and as such imperfect and perhaps dangerous. (Strausz-Hupé put it thus: “Historical analogies are like the wings of butterflies: firmly grasped they crumble into particles which may be of interest to a biochemist but no longer evoke the marvelous whole of functional and aesthetical perfection.”[3]) Nonetheless, they do convey the idea that a local skirmish often is part of a much wider contest and may lead to geographically more expansive violence.

Furthermore, even when a local war does not erupt into a larger conflagration, it is part of a wider geopolitical game. Putin did not invade Crimea simply because he wanted direct control over that peninsula, or even because he wants to exercise influence over Ukraine writ large. He acts locally but thinks globally. He wants to alter the post-1991 order by proving that the Western order is predicated on an empty promise of security. Hence, while President Obama defines Russian as a mere “regional” power whose reach is limited to small, globally insignificant places, Russian leaders define the region as “Eurasia,” a big piece of world’s real estate. Ukraine is thus a local war fought with a much larger geopolitical game in mind.

As Strausz-Hupé put it in a forgotten essay on Russia, Moscow pursues a foreign policy that “is characterized by matchless simplicity of conception and persistence of effort.” He continued with an observation that maintains its relevance:

The principal theatre of operations is now, as it has been for nearly three centuries, eastern and southeastern Europe, and Russian policy in the Middle and Far East has been largely derivative. Only when Russia was blocked in Europe, on the Baltic and Moldavian Plains, only then did she turn to Asia. Russia exercised pressure on the Asiatic rim-lands, especially on Britain’s positions in southwestern Asia, in order to obtain concessions in Europe. Russian expansionism, although it harvested rich territorial gains in central and eastern Asia, did not let itself be deflected from its primary goals, to wit, Russia’s strategic frontiers in the West.[4]

In the end, as Strausz-Hupé did over the decades of his intellectual and policy activity, there is a constant need to remind ourselves of the unpleasant reality of international politics: history is not a string of successes, force needs to be met with force, and the larger geopolitical context is present even in small local wars.

About the author:
Jakub Grygiel is a Senior Fellow in FPRI’s Program on National Security, and the George H.W. Bush Associate Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University. He is an International Affairs columnist for Giornale del Popolo in Switzerland and Il Mondo in Italy, where he has written on the end of communism, the revival of Russian nationalism and other topics related to the history, economics and politics of Central and Eastern Europe. He was editor of the Journal of Public and International Affairs, and served as a consultant to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris and to the World Bank.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI and may be accessed here.

References:
[1] Robert Strausz-Hupé, The Zone of Indifference (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1952), 273.

[2] Strausz-Hupé, 207.

[3] Strausz-Hupé, 27.

[4] Robert Strausz-Hupé, “The Western Frontiers of Russia,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3 (July 1947), 322.

A powerful 8.2-magnitude earthquake has struck off the northwestern coast of Chile, setting off a small tsunami and prompting evacuations along Latin America’s Pacific coastline.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the earthquake was centered about 100 kilometers northwest of Iquique Tuesday evening. It was followed by several aftershocks, including one measuring 6.2 in magnitude.

Chilean authorities said waves measuring about two meters were striking cities along the coast. Officials quickly ordered evacuations, warning that larger waves may come later.

There have been no reports of deaths, injuries, or widespread damage, but Chile’s emergency office said the earthquake has caused landslides that are partially blocking some roads and highways.

A tsunami alert has been issued for the entire Pacific coast of Central and South America.

U.S. officials said they have found no imminent threat of a tsunami along the coasts of Hawaii, Alaska, California, Oregon or Washington state after the earthquake near Chile, but the danger is still under evaluation.

Chile is one of the world’s most earthquake prone countries. In 2010, a 8.8-magnitude quake rocked central Chile, killing over 500 people and destroying 220,000 homes.

The region hit by Tuesday’s quake had also experienced several smaller temblors in recent days, including a 6.0-magnitude earthquake on Sunday.

By Nohad Topalian

Faced with a choice between living safely in Lebanon or under bombardment in Syria, Syrian citizen Mohammed Mahmoud and his family chose the latter.

Mahmoud spoke with Al-Shorfa as he prepared to return to his hometown of Sayyida Zainab, south of Damascus, even though he knows the building he once lived in with his brothers has been levelled.

He has for the last three months shared a small room in Mazraat Yachouh with his wife Suhaila, his three children, his brother Khair and his sister-in-law Khuloud, after spending the past two years moving around Lebanon from shelter to shelter.

“Between the humiliation in which we live today and death by [artillery] shell in my country, I prefer the latter,” he told Al-Shorfa.

“I can no longer bear our situation. After living in a large house and making a decent living for my family, we now live in what looks like a chicken coop,” Mahmoud said. “I cannot provide for my family because I was not able to find work, and I am not receiving assistance from anyone.”

While Mahmoud knows he no longer owns anything in his hometown and that he will be exposing himself to danger since the area is under the control of the Syrian regime and Hizbullah fighters, his two older sons Ayman, 9, and Eham, 8, long to return. Their 2-year-old brother Amjad is unaware of what is going on.

“Our house is very large and each of us has his own bedroom,” Ayman and Eham told Al-Shorfa. “It has a living room, bathrooms and a large veranda where we yearn very much to play with blocks and [toy] cars.”

The two children are unaware they have lost their home and all their toys, their father said.

They are eager to return because “we can no longer bear to sleep on the ground and live in this small room that has become our life”, he said.

They also want to return to school, Ayman said. “I want to complete my studies to become an adult and follow in my father’s profession as an electrician.”

By the end of March, around 990,000 Syrians displaced in Lebanon had registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). An unspecified number of families on their way back to Syria is also being registered, according to UNHCR spokeswoman Dana Suleiman.

Returning, even if to rubble

Khair and Khuloud Mahmoud prefer to stay in the tin room until the picture in Syria gets clearer.

Khuloud told Al-Shorfa she wishes she could return as soon as possible “to put an end to the worries, sorrow and humiliation we are living in”.

However, she and her husband are delaying their return because they fear oppression.

“All we wish for is for people in Syria to simmer down so we can go back, and may God have mercy on all the martyrs from all sects,” she said.

Jalila Chalaweet and her three children, 27-year-old Wajdi, 25-year-old Brigitte and Alan, 22, cannot wait to return to Homs, even if to live in a tent pitched in the garden of their home, which has been demolished.

Chalaweet arrived in al-Ashrafieh with her family three years ago, where they found a roof to live under in a house whose good-hearted owner turns a blind eye if they are late in paying the rent, she told Al-Shorfa.

“Life here is not for us. We cannot even live at the minimum standard [of living],” she told Al-Shorfa. “My son Wajdi was in shock over the burning of our supermarket in Homs and the demolition of our house, and is today suffering from depression, but we cannot get him treatment. And my younger son Alan quit university to work as a waiter in a restaurant to pay the rent.”

Chalaweet said she is ready to return as soon as possible to her demolished house in Homs in order to rebuild both it and the supermarket.

“We no longer care who wins or loses. All we care about is to return, even if to rubble,” she said.

A massive 8.2 magnitude quake has struck off the coast of northern Chile, killing 5 people and displacing around 80,000. Damages and fires have been reported throughout the region and many have lost power because of the quake.

The quake occurred Tuesday, 95 km (59 miles) northwest of the mining area of Iquique near the Peruvian border. The epicenter was located at a shallow depth of about 20 km (12 miles) below the seabed.

The Chilean navy said the first sign of the tsunami hitting the coast was within 45 minutes of the quake. The US Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) said a tsunami measuring almost two meters had been generated.

Chile’s emergency ministry ONEMI said there have been reports of landslides causing some blockage on roads and highways.

At least five people have died following the quake, Chile’s Interior Minister Rodrigo Penailillo said. In Iquique, four men reportedly died of heart attacks and in the municipality of Alto Hospicio one woman was crushed to death when a wall collapsed.

The country’s president, Michelle Bachelet, has declared the region around the epicenter a “disaster zone” and praised Chile’s emergency services for their swift response to the crisis.

Electricity is out in Iquique, and partially lost in the Peruvian cities of Tacna, Moquegua, and Arequipa, Reuters reports.

Several aftershocks – ranging from magnitude 5 to 6.2 – were detected in the area following the earthquake.

Two major fires have been reported in Iquique following the quake, according to Publimetro. There have also been reports of looting in the city.

All of the Latin American Pacific coast is under threat for tsunami activity, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS). In addition to Chile, a tsunami warning has been issued for Peru, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said. Tsunami watches for Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua have been cancelled.

Aleuy said the tsunami alert for Chile’s coast will last for at least another six hours after the quake, Reuters reported.

By Osama Al Sharif

Time is running out for US Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace mediation between Israel and the Palestinians. Eight months had passed since he convinced the two sides to return to the negotiating table. The deadline for the conclusion of this round of talks is April 29, but there are few indications that things are going Kerry’s way. In fact the two sides appeared to be moving away from each other recently as Israel backed down on its commitment to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners while President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to walk away from talks if Israel does not honor its words.

Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy resumed last week after a short hiatus following events in Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. He met in Amman with King Abdallah and later with President Abbas. From Paris he called Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu in an effort to convince him to deliver on his promise to release the final batch of Palestinian prisoners. And by Monday evening he was back in the region to oversee delicate talks with both sides. Reports say Netanyahu wants something in return for setting Palestinian priosners free; the release of imprisoned spy Jonathan Pollard. He also wants the Palestinians to commit to an extension to negotiations in addition to guarantees that Abbas will not take his case to UN and international organizations.

The Palestinians are clearly frustrated. Israel has accelerated its settlement activities in East Jerusalem and the West Bank while continuing to negotiate. While refusing to budge on settlements, it now insists that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, something that Abbas has refused to do. In the recent Arab Summit in Kuwait, Arab leaders collectively rejected that demand. Netanyahu has made it clear that failing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is a deal breaker.

But there are other deal breakers that Kerry has to confront. Although no details have been made public about his proposed framework of principles, which should pave the way to reaching a final deal within a year, what has emerged from Palestinian and Israeli officials does not bode well for the Palestinian side.

Israel rejects the right of return for Palestinian refugees, refuses to negotiate on East Jerusalem, is about to annex major settlements in the West Bank, demands that it keeps its troops permanently in the Jordan Valley and wants to have security guarantees from the future Palestinian state. Even then Netanyahu will not commit to a final deal.

Abbas, on the other hand, will not accept to sign on to a deal that denies the Palestinians almost every “right” that contributes to a just resolution to decades of injustice suffered by his people. He is reminded by his aides of the offer, which was delivered to his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, at Camp David in 2000 and which the Palestinian leader could not accept. Abbas himself failed to embrace another deal that was offered to him by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.

Failure by both sides to come to an understanding has delayed Kerry’s framework agreement. It is unlikely that he will be able to bring the two parties closer in the remaining time. His current efforts will focus on convincing them to negotiate beyond the April 29 deadline. For Israel the extension is important for several reasons: It relieves Netanyahu from making any commitments at present, allowing his government to push on with plans to Judaize East Jerusalem further and at a quicker pace. It also portrays Israel as a peace negotiator while putting the blame for any interruption on the Palestinians. Most importantly it denies the Palestinian side the opportunity to gain legitimacy and recognition by international organizations following Palestine’s admittance to the UN as a non-member state.

Abbas knows that US pressure will fall on him to accept an extension. His threat to go to the UN and others will cost his flailing Palestinian Authority (PA) dearly in terms of financial and political support. He risks becoming irrelevant if he challenges the US and Israel.

On the other hand he cannot accept unfair Israeli conditions for a peace accord. His situation has become worse as his own Fatah movement is now suffering from internal divisions. His foe, Mohammad Dahlan, has gained the support of some Gulf countries and was recently welcomed in Egypt. Relations with Hamas have not improved and there is an Israeli veto against Palestinian reconciliation.

Ironically and for different reasons neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians see any value in reaching a deal now. But Kerry will push on with his initiative. It is likely that Abbas will cave in and accept an extension for a small price, such as the release of additional Palestinian prisoners. He will look for a face-saving gesture and find a way to convince his supporters of the necessity of staying engaged in peace talks. Sadly this will be beneficial to Israel but will come at a great expense to the Palestinians.

Email: alsharif.osama@gmail.com

(RFE/RL) — The U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislation that includes aid for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia for its annexation of Crimea.

The vote on April 1 in the House of Representatives was 378 in support and 34 against.

The Senate passed the bill, which includes $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine, last week.

“With Russian forces massing on Ukraine’s borders, tension and fear is spreading throughout the region, and our legislation sends a clear signal — that Congress will not stand for further violations,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York.

The legislation has been sent to President Barack Obama to sign into law.

The White House said Obama welcomed Congress’ finalization of a Ukraine assistance package.

Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has warned his country is on the brink of economic and financial bankruptcy.

Ukraine’s Finance Ministry has said it needs $35 billion over the next two years to avoid default.

The bill also authorizes $150 million in aid to Ukraine and surrounding countries and requires the U.S. State and Justice Departments to help the Ukrainian government recover assets amassed by corrupt Ukrainian officials.

The legislation supplements sanctions the Obama administration has already levied on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle and a Russian bank.

Russia’s incursion into Crimea has caused a deep rift between Moscow and Washington.

Broadcast Money

The House of Representatives also passed overwhelmingly another bill to provide additional money to increase broadcasts of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America to eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, to counter pro-Russian broadcasts in the area.

The vote was 399 in support and 12 against for the bill which has already cleared the Senate, and will now head to Obama.

Representative Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused Moscow of using propaganda to create confusion and fear in the Ukraine.

“Russia’s propaganda machine is in overdrive — stirring confusion, fear, and unrest in Ukraine. This legislation counters that by providing added accurate news and information by U.S.-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America. For decades, this type of broadcasting has been pivotal in helping young and struggling democracies push back against media lies and distortions and get off their feet,” Royce said in a written statement.

Quoted earlier by the AP news agency, Royce said Russian forces have seized control of at least a dozen television and radio stations in Crimea that they now use to broadcast misleading reports that Russian speakers in Ukraine have been under attack.

By Derek Tonkin

After three years of remarkable progress, commentators are wondering whether the reform process in Myanmar might be running out of steam. Some Western politicians undoubtedly cherished unreasonable expectations about the pace of the transition to democracy. More generally, the outcome of the Arab ‘Spring’ has shattered many illusions. Transitions are seen to be fraught with difficulties.

There has been a concerted, possibly inspired campaign against the National Census which is due to start on 30 March 2014, counting the population as at midnight tonight. In some cases, I suspect an intention to destabilise, as there is never likely to be a good time for a Census in any nation in transition. It is on balance better that the deed were done now, rather than wait until later.

There is trouble in Sittwe. Almost 100 years ago in 1917, Arakan Commissioner RB Smart recorded the serious problems which Sittwe (Akyab) faced as a result of the influx of Chittagonians which, he feared, might well mean that “the Arakanese proper might not survive long”. Today, however, it is the Rakhine who have driven most residents of Islamic faith from Sittwe, leaving the ghetto of Aung Mingalar as their last bastion, under constant threat.

There is a tendency among some Western Governments, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, to see reform of the Constitution as the essential precondition for further progress towards democracy, a view also held by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. This is an ideological stance, but not practical politics.

The Myanmar Government faces many challenges, of which the negotiation of a peace deal and political settlement with the non-Burman nationalities and the management of sharply deteriorating relations between the Buddhist majority and the Muslim minority are the more serious.

Though some confidence-building measures are likely to be included in the constitutional review to grant recognition to ethnic aspirations, such as allowing Local Assemblies to select and appoint their Chief Minister rather than the President as at present, the renegotiation of the Constitution to grant a measure of federal autonomy could only follow the peace deal and political settlement which is currently under negotiation. The understandings reached then need to be enshrined in the Constitution. It cannot happen the other way round.

Nor are the relations between Buddhist and Muslim communities to be resolved through constitutional amendment, any more than reform of the Constitution help could be all that relevant to many of the other issues facing the country, such as the social disruption which increasing “land grabs” are causing and the urgent need to improve the living standards of the rural population.

The recent speeches by President Thein Sein at the conclusion of the parliamentary session and by Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing at the 69^th Armed Forces Day parade have made it clear that constitutional reform will be a long process and that the military will continue to play for some time yet the role in national politics which the present Constitution has defined. During the first five-year term of parliament, it never seemed likely to me that any substantive changes to the Constitution would be made. That could only be expected after the 2015 Elections, during the second term.

Some in the West – notably the United States and the United Kingdom – would seem to suggest that the only thing which now matters is the amendment of Article 59(f) of the Constitution which may debar Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, not from being nominated as a presidential candidate, but from being elected if so nominated. Suu Kyi herself has vigorously lobbied for this amendment while overseas, though less so in Myanmar itself. The problem is that Suu Kyi’s two sons have British citizenship, which apparently excludes her election. I say “apparently” because they were both issued with Burmese passports in 1988 on the basis of her registration of their births with the Burmese Consul in London. Though these passports were later withdrawn, the two sons may still possess latent Burmese citizenship.

This matter could be referred to the Constitutional Court in the event of a substantial electoral victory by the National League for Democracy at the elections expected in late 2015 and Suu Kyi’s subsequent nomination as a presidential candidate when Parliament convenes, which might not be until 2016. But this begs the question of whether such a substantial electoral victory is in any case likely to occur.

Suu Kyi and the NLD would seem to be losing ground. An unwise discussion between the controversial monk U Wirathu and Win Tin of the NLD has led some to conclude that factions in the monkhood are not in favour of Suu Kyi’s presidential candidature. Suu Kyi has in the past expressed her opposition to the proposed marriage and conversion laws as well as to the two-child policy for Rakhine Muslims which the local administration in Rakhine State has sought to promote. This may not have resonated well with some sections of the population.

The Daw Suu Foundation, recently registered as a non-profit organization in the State Of Delaware USA, with Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton as Honorary Co-Chairs, is not what you might expect from an aspirant to the presidential nomination in the sovereign Republic of the Union of Myanmar.

The policies of the NLD remain something of a mystery. Their senior organization is opaque. The management of the party is autocratic. They do not even have a website, neither in Burmese nor in English. The influential 88 Student Generation group remains generally apart from the NLD, though they are working together on constitutional reform. Rival 88 Student candidates at the 2015 elections could prove seriously divisive.

Is the NLD and Suu Kyi up to the rough and tumble of politics normal in South East Asia? Towards the end of this year we expect another round of by-elections to fill long-standing vacant seats in some 30 constituencies. In April 2012, the NLD had a virtual clean sweep, winning 43 out of 44 contested in 45 constituencies. This time there are 13 Lower House seats including 6 in States, 6 Upper House seats including 3 in States, and 11 in Local Assemblies including 5 in States. Those 14 seats in (ethnic) States are unlikely to be a walk-over for the NLD. I would expect them to win at least 60% of the seats overall, but the NLD are less than popular in the States these days and their main opponents, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), are likely to put up a tougher fight than in April 2012.

The general elections in late 2015, on the other hand, will be keenly contested. The USDP will not allow the NLD to walk all over them as they did in April 2012. The USDP could resort to populist policies, which Thaksin Shinawatra found so electorally rewarding in Thailand. Clandestine vote-buying, which still plagues even Indonesia, could make its debut in Myanmar. Brash electoral promises could be made, with which the NLD may find it hard to compete. In these conditions of marginally “free and fair” elections, the NLD would be lucky to secure a simple majority of elected seats in any assembly. Even a two thirds majority of elected seats would only represent about 50% of total seats when the 25% tranche of military appointees is included. Indeed, the likelihood is that the NLD might not have an overall majority in either the Lower or Upper Houses and might not then be in a position to nominate Suu Kyi as a presidential candidate. Intriguing as it would be, I somehow doubt that the military would choose her as their presidential candidate.

The only conclusion I dare reach at this stage is that the political future of Myanmar is enigmatic. There are forces at work which could so easily upset the apple-cart, and especially Suu Kyi’s ambition, so strongly but unwisely supported in the West, to be the next President of a country seated in the United Nations under an English name which she cannot yet bring herself to accept.

Some countries in the West could be heading for a big disappointment. Washington could resort to intransigence again, while London could lose interest, or worse. This would be regrettable, and assuredly counterproductive, though China would be delighted. But most Western countries are likely to maintain the full engagement which they are now pursuing.

This article was first published here.

A 5-4 split decision handed down Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated a long-standing law that limited the overall amount of money US citizens can contribute to political campaigns each election cycle.

The landmark ruling in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission will not directly impact a law that currently keeps Americans from legally being able to contribute more than $2,600 apiece to individual candidates running for federal office each two-year period. It does, however, erase a so-called “aggregate cap” of $123,200 that up until now prevented people from contributing a combined total of more than $48,600 to the candidates of their choice and $74,000 on parties and Political Action Committees, or PACS, each cycle.

Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, a conservative electrical engineer from Alabama, insisted that the limits in place hindered his freedom of speech because it prohibited his ability to donate freely to the politicians he favored. During the last cycle, McCutcheon contributed the symbolically significant amount of $1,776 apiece to a total of 15 right-leaning candidates running for Congress, but FEC restrictions prohibited him from spending much more because signing checks to other candidates would have quickly put him over the aggregate cap.

“It’s about freedom of speech and your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. It’s a basic freedom,” he said ahead of Wednesday’s ruling.

This week’s decision leaves in place the limit of $2,600 applied to contributions made out to individual candidates, but rescinds the threshold that relegated how much money in all can be spent during two-year election cycles, opening the door for people like McCutcheon to be able to write $2,600 checks to as many candidates as they’d wish while allowing them to open their wallets to PACs and parties.

“Hypothetically, a single donor can now contribute as much as $3.5 million, to be divvied up between candidates, PACs, and political parties,” Mother Jones journalist Andy Kroll wrote on Wednesday. “No single entity could receive any more than the legal limits, and when you add up all the contributions a donor could potentially make without the aggregate limits, you get $3.5 million.” According to Reuters, the Public Citizen consumer advocacy group determined ahead of Wednesday’s ruling that erasing aggregate caps first installed in 1974 would actually allow a single donor to spend as much as $5.9 million on a joint fundraising committee controlled by an elected politician or party official.

The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics claims that almost 1.3 million people donated more than $200 to federal candidates, party committees and PACs last year, but only around 600 Americans hit the maximum donation limit to federal candidates that election year.

“Today, the court made clear that restraints on the political speech of those whose views you don’t like must fail,” McCutcheon’s lawyer, Dan Backer, said to USA Today early Wednesday. “Free speech is the right of all Americans, and not a revocable grant from the government of the day.”

FEC regulations in place ahead of this week’s ruling were established in order to counter any political corruption that may have been spawned by gross overspending by wealthy Americans advocating for issues aligned to certain parties and politicians.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority opinion that limits on the total amount of money that donors can contribute to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional, but the court agreed to leave the ceiling in place that stopped politicians from receiving too much from a single citizen.

“The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance,” Roberts wrote. “We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.”

The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities,’” Roberts said.

Justice Clarence Thomas was among the five justices who ruled with the majority, but said in a separate memo issued with Wednesday’s decision that he believed the Supreme Court should have scrubbed all contribution limits.

In part, the dissenting justices wrote that the decision “eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”

“While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to First Amendment freedom,” McCutcheon said in reaction to the ruling. “The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits.”

House Speaker John Boehner hailed the decision by saying “freedom of speech is being upheld,” POLITICO reported, but Fred Wertheimer, the president of the public interest group Democracy 21, told USA Today that “The court’s decisions have empowered a new class of American political oligarchs.”

Together with the SCOTUS decision in the case of Citizens United v FEC that removed boundaries that kept corporations from freely funding PACs. Wertheimer added that “the Supreme Court has turned our representative system of government into a sandbox for America’s billionaires and millionaires to play in.”

Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine’s ousted president, said Wednesday that he was “wrong” to invite Russian troops into Crimea, and vowed to try to persuade Russia to return the Black Sea peninsula.

In his first interview since fleeing to Russia in February, Yanukovich told The Associated Press and Russia’s state NTV television that he still hopes to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin to get back the coveted region. Crimea rejoined Russia last month following a referendum, where more than 96 percent of voters opted for the region’s integration into the Russian Federation.

“Crimea is a tragedy, a major tragedy,” Yanukovych told AP, insisting that Russia’s takeover of Crimea wouldn’t have happened if he had stayed in power. He fled Ukraine after three months of anti-government protests against his rule.

The ousted president said he has personally met with Putin since he arrived and hopes to have more meetings with the Russian leader to negotiate Crimea’s return.

“We must set such a task and search for ways to return to Crimea on any conditions, so that Crimea may have the maximum degree of independence possible … but be part of Ukraine,” he said.

Yanukovych said he and Putin had a “calm” but “difficult” conversation.

Yanukovich confirms on TV asked Putin to deploy Russian troops to save Ukrainian lives

He said the Crimean referendum – in which residents overwhelmingly voted to join Russia – was a response to threats posed by radical nationalists in Ukraine.

Yanukovych had pushed for local referendums that would allow parts of Ukraine to determine their own local government structures. He argued that should have been followed by a constitutional reform, and only after that should Ukraine have a national election.

The interim government in Kiev that took power after Yanukovych, meanwhile, has scheduled a presidential and some mayoral elections for May 25.

Yanukovych backs all-Ukrainian referendum

Asked about his opulent country residence outside of Kiev – a complex that shocked crowds of Ukrainians with its extravagant display of wealth amid the country’s financial ruin – Yanukovych denied any allegations of corruption. He spoke with pride about his collection of dozens of old-time cars, but said he hadn’t seen or used the golden loaf of bread found in his residence that has attracted much attention and sarcasm.

Yanukovych denied that he had given orders to shoot protesters in Ukraine’s capital, where about 80 people were shot dead by snipers at anti-government protests in February. The government now in power has charged Yanukovych in connection with those deaths.

Yanukovych said he was criticized by his entourage for taking too soft an attitude toward the protesters, but insisted that he was reluctant to use force.

The politician said he hopes to return to Ukraine someday, but didn’t offer any details on how he could reclaim power.

While Putin has made it clear that Yanukovych has no political future, the Russian president has also insisted that Yanukovych’s ouster was illegal and says he still remains Ukraine’s only legitimate president.

By D Suba Chandran

What does the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) want in Pakistan? How far it will go? Is there a change in its endgame today as compared to its original founding objective?

TTP’s Endgame: Four Objectives

In a conflict situation, especially while dealing with an armed non-State actor, it is not easy to identify and differentiate between the rhetoric and real objective. In order to gain legitimacy for their illegitimate means, any non-State actor is likely to exaggerate the rhetoric.

Though there has never been a comprehensive exposé of what it aims at and how it plans to achieve the same, the 15 points put forward during the February negotiations reveal the TTP’s rhetoric and real demands. They could be classified under four major categories: Afghanistan, Pakistan-US relations, Military operations by the security forces, and a blue print for governing Pakistan, with an exclusive role for itself.

TTP and Afghanistan

The TTP’s agenda and objectives vis-à-vis Afghanistan are more rhetorical in nature and do not have any substantial underlines. The TTP is more focussed on Pakistan, and prefers to leave the state of affairs in Afghanistan to Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network. The TTP fights the Pakistani security forces and goes after targets within Pakistan; there haven’t been any substantial reports of the TTP and its fighters crossing the Durand Line for fighting the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan.

While they have used the Afghan soil as a temporary hideout, and training grounds, the TTP is unlikely to go after the security forces in Afghanistan. The TTP’s objective in Afghanistan would remain limited to provide the space for Mullah Omar and the Haqqanis, by being a cushion on the Eastern side of the Durand Line.

TTP, the US and US-Pakistan Relations

The TTP objects Pakistan-US relations for two reasons: first, ever since the TTP was formed with substantial support from the al Qaeda, it acted as a veritable arm of the latter, to ease military pressure within Pakistan. Since the start of the Global War on Terror in 2001, the Pakistani military carried out select strikes against the al Qaeda, arresting its top leaders and handing over them to the US. Though the military and its Inter-Services Intelligence hid Osama bin Laden, it proactively assisted the US in neutralising the second tier leadership of the al Qaeda.

Second, the TTP was, for most part, a creation of the al Qaeda, with fewer inputs from the Afghan Taliban. Though Mullah Omar was accepted as the supreme leader by successive TTP leaders, the Mehsud clan associated with the TTP was closer to the al Qaeda than the Afghan Taliban. In this context, the TTP has substantially failed in achieving its objectives. Today, the al Qaeda is neutralised within Pakistan and is in the process of migrating to other regions; perhaps, the process is closer to conclusion.

The Present and the Future: TTP’s New Blueprint for Pakistan
The third and fourth major objectives of the TTP would remain the most crucial in determining the endgame for the Pakistani Taliban. It is hence essential to take into account two crucial factors: the change in Pakistani Taliban’s leadership – from the Mehsuds to Mullah Fazlullah – and the objectives of the multiple franchisees of the TTP.

As mentioned earlier, until 2013, the TTP leadership was closer to the al Qaeda than to the Afghan Taliban. More importantly, despite the occasional emphasis on jihad, until now, the TTP leadership was devoid of any ideological base. The Mehsud leadership acted more as foot soldiers for the al Qaeda’s military objectives, rather than presenting any coherent ideological programme, however warped. Mullah Fazlullah’s elevation as the TTP chief with support from the Afghan Taliban is likely to change the endgame for the TTP. In an interview in early 2014, a Taliban spokesperson made a crucial comment: “Swat Taliban is TTP today.”

In this context, one has to go back and trace what the Swat Taliban wanted and fought for in Malakand, and also analyse Mullah Fazlullah’s personality. Unlike the TTP under the Mehsuds, the Swati Taliban (which can be traced back to the erstwhile Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi in the Malakand region, and which came into existence even before the Pakistani Taliban) had an ideological agenda and endgame, despite the comparatively limited geographical hold.

The TTP’s demands for imposing Sharia law in Pakistan will have to be interpreted in this context. It is unlikely that the TTP wants to impose Sharia all over Pakistan at this juncture, but it would certainly like to start with the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas regions; and unfortunately, the State and its political parties are likely to yield to this proposition in a barter arrangement, further unravelling the FATA.

Finally, the multiple franchisees of the TTP, especially the Punjabi Taliban, are unlikely to stop with limited demands in the FATA or Pashtun areas. Their target would be the heartland of Pakistan, especially Punjab, vis-à-vis the minorities and non-Sunni communities.

The real war against Pakistan would begin once the US leaves Pakistan; and not by the TTP in FATA but by the Punjabi Taliban in the heart of Pakistan. There lies the greater threat for the future of Pakistan.

D Suba Chandran
Director, IPCS

By Manish Vaid

The increasing importance accorded to India-Japan relationship was reemphasized during Prime Minister Abe’s New Delhi visit late January that brought into sharp focus the critical issue of energy security in the changing geo-political landscape in Asia. The highlight of the visit were deliberations on energy efficiency and conservation measures, which both the countries believe can effectively handle the energy crisis, thereby providing a secure and sustainable energy future.

Moreover, this visit also significantly opened avenues for bolstering energy ties between the two countries in areas ranging from conventional to non-conventional energy resources.

This renewed energy cooperation between the two countries attains significance particularly at a time when India, despite having an objective of energy independence through substantially decreasing its crude imports by 2030 is actually becoming increasingly dependent on it. If estimates of BP Energy Outlook 2035 are to be believed, India’s oil imports will rise by 169 per cent, accounting for 60 per cent of the net increase in imports.

It therefore becomes inescapable for India to find a way out in dealing with its ever increasing energy consumption and imports by implementing stringent measures of energy efficiency and conservation, while inculcating energy discipline at the core of its economic activity as a long term sustainable goal. India-Japan energy cooperation will also address the concern of India’s rising crude import bills and falling domestic natural gas production by importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) jointly, bringing down the procurement cost.

Though, Indo-Japan energy cooperation initially began in the beginning of the new millennium when during the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Mori in 2000 to India, ‘Global Partnership in the 21st Century was launched. However, greater thrust given to energy sector cooperation was evident in India-Japan joint statement on ‘Enhancement of Cooperation on Environment Protection and Energy Security’, during Abe’s visit in August 2007.

Keeping the fundamental objective of energy security in mind, various agreements between these two countries have been signed during Abe’s January visit. To enhance energy efficiency in telecom towers, for instance, memorandum of undertaking (MoU) was signed between Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation (NEDO) and India’s Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India on a Model Project for Energy Management Systems.
Further, to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in coal-fired plant, both countries agreed to use Clean Coal Technologies. And as a result, they signed a loan agreement between National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) and Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC) for Kudgi supercritical coal-fired power project in Karnataka and Auraiya power project in Uttar Pradesh to the tune of $430 million.

On energy efficiency and conservation front both these countries have agreed upon to extend their partnership under agreement signed between India’s Petroleum Conservation Research Association and Japan’s Energy Conservation Centre, which aims to promote energy efficiency including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions using clean technologies, promoting energy labeling for energy efficient appliances and so on.

Further, Japan can augment its support for India’s coal sector endeavour, through implementation of coal washery technology, promotion of high-efficiency use of low rank coal and implementation of communication system for the purpose of securing safety in coal mine, while promoting sustainable economic growth taking environmental issues into consideration. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) is already involved in commercial scale project which reduces ash content of coal using highly efficient coal washery technology at Angul in eastern State of Odisha. India and Japan are also strengthening their cooperation on renewable energy front and some of their initiatives include Waste to Energy, Green Corridor and development of smart grid.

Notably, Japan has already gained a leadership status in these areas way back since 1970s, consequently having a clear competitive advantage over other countries, thanks to its Sunshine and Moonlight Projects which was launched in 1974 and 1978 respectively. Strikingly, the outcome of these initiatives was reduction of crude oil imports by Japan from around 80 per cent in 1973 to about 50 per cent during 1990s, thereby shifting its focus from oil to renewable energy and natural gas.

India is trying to deal with its domestic energy concerns of falling oil and gas production and rising crude oil and coal imports through various measures including reforming its New Exploration and Licensing Policy (NELP), intensifying its efforts in developing domestic unconventional energy resources and diversifying its crude imports. In this regard Japan’s support holds special importance.
Besides, support towards energy efficiency and conservation technologies, Japan is also willing to cooperate in India’s effort to augment domestic oil and gas reserves and joint procurement of costlier LNG so as to cut the cost of its import. In this regard India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) has signed a memorandum of understanding with Japan’s Mitsui & Co. for exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources in India and elsewhere, enhancing similar such future opportunities.

As regard procurement of LNG, both the countries have already moved forward in their decision to cooperate in joint procurement of LNG so as to cut the Asian Premium to some extent benefiting both the largest and emerging LNG importer. Chubu Electric Power Company of Japan and Gas Authority India Limited (GAIL) of India have joined hands and soon are going to sign a memorandum of understanding in this regard.

Both the countries have realised the need to cooperate in enhancing the safety of nuclear power plants, thereby reopening the possibilities of further dialogue in civil nuclear energy cooperation on a faster track by reaffirming the importance of early conclusion of the negotiations of an Agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, taking into account the joint statement of May 29, 2013. This gained further prominence when on December 16, 2013, the draft ‘Basic Energy Plan’ declared that nuclear power would remain to be a ‘key base power source’ so as to stable energy supply, cost reduction and measure to combat global warming.

Last but not the least India and Japan are further willing to give the highest priority to global environment challenges while strengthening their energy security through continuous and effective action. Both the countries recognise the need to promote industrial cooperation to expand bilateral energy cooperation on a commercial basis. In this regard New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation (NEDO) and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) held Japan-India Energy Forum and are already providing valuable inputs to the bilateral engagement on energy security. Similar such arrangements have been made between the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and NEDO for promoting Japanese technologies needed to help energy issues in India.
Therefore, for a energy thirsty nation like India which is expected to increase its dependency on imported crude and also to a greater extent on LNG, tying up with Japan would secure India’s energy insecurity to a greater extent, thereby offering extended mutual benefits to both the countries, particularly with respect to energy savings and efficiency, which should be the topmost agenda for any energy hungry nation.

Both the countries with these efforts would also ensure energy security not at the cost of environment degradation but through ways and means that also ensures holistic sustainable development of their economies.

Manish Vaid is Junior Fellow with Observer Research Foundation having research interest in energy policy and geopolitics.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/WhyisJapanimportanttoIndiasenergysecurity_mvaid_010414

The Council of the European Union have announced the immediate launch of a military operation in the Central African Republic to help “achieve a safe and a secure environment” amid the escalating crisis, said the council’s order.

European Union Force RCA, led by the French Major-General Philippe Ponties, will compromise up to 1,000 troops. They are to provide “temporary support in achieving a safe and secure environment in the area, with a view to handing over to a UN peacekeeping operation or to African partners.”

The HQ and the troops will be located in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic and its largest city. The operational center will be located in Larissa, Greece.

The troops are to be deployed rapidly to ensure “the immediate effect” of the operation.

The mission is tasked with “protecting the populations most at risk and to the creation of the conditions for providing humanitarian aid.”

The costs were estimated by the EU at €25.9 million for the preparatory phase a mandate of up to six months starting from the point of reaching full operational capability.

The move has been authorized by the UN Security Council in resolution 2134 (2014).

“The launch of this operation demonstrates the EU’s determination to take full part in international efforts to restore stability and security in Bangui and right across the Central African Republic,” said the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton.

“We have reacted swiftly to the serious crisis in the Central African Republic. We are using all the tools at our disposal,” Ashton said earlier. “But the absolute priority is to protect the civilian population from any further violence, to ensure that the people of the Central African Republic can live without fear and start rebuilding their country, and to make sure that humanitarian aid can be provided.”

The Central African Republic has witnessed increasing sectarian violence since mainly Muslim Seleka rebels seized power a year ago. They have been perpetrating abuses on the majority Christian population that have been retaliating with attacks. The violence led to thousands of deaths and has displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

As the presidential election race draws closer, the Prime Minister has accused the opposition of echoing Greece’s line in the vexed Greek-Macedonian dispute over the country’s name.

As election races hot up in Macedonia, the ruling VMRO DPMNE party has accused the opposition of holding standpoints on the sensitive issue of the country’s name issue that betray national interests.

The opposition has meanwhile accused the ruling parties of taking too hard a line on the name issue, and of excluding them from any discussion about it.

The Prime Minister and VMRO DPMNE head, Nikola Gruevski, has gone so far as to say that the opposition Social Democrats, SDSM, sound like Greek politicians on the name issue – Greece being Macedonia’s foe on the name issue.

Speaking at a party rally in support of VMRO DPMNE’s candidate in the presidential race, the incumbent head of state, Gjorge Ivanov, Gruevski said: “I see how easily the SDSM throws different names [for Macedonia] on the table, how easily they speak against us, and hold us to blame for the name dispute not being solved and for Macedonia not entering the EU and NATO, although we fulfill all the requirements.

“Do I hear [Greek Deputy Prime Minister Evangelos] Venizelos speaking, or the opposition?” he asked.

“It looks like Venizelos is speaking, not a Macedonian presidential candidate. Only the Greeks say such things. I do not believe this is coincidental,” Gruevski added.

Stevo Pendarovski, presidential candidate of the opposition, replied that Gruevski was the only political figure in any position to negotiate with Greece, and so potentially “sell” the country’s name, making it absurd to accuse the opposition of treason.

“A name solution should not be a matter of government, family, ethnic or personal consensus,” Pendarovski said.

“We should start solving the name issue by first building a national consensus on it,” he added.

Macedonia obtained EU candidate status back in December 2005, and European Commission reports have recommended a start to membership talks each year since 2009.

But the country has never been offered a date for EU accession talks, nor an invitation to join NATO, owing to a Greek blockade related to the dispute over its name.

Greece insists that Macedonia’s name implies territorial claims to its own northern province, also called Macedonia.

Taking a tough line in the dispute with Greece over Macedonia’s name and identity has proved a winning formula for Gruevski who has held power since 2006.

During the ongoing presidential campaign, Gruevski’s political protégée, President Ivanov, has followed this line, building up an image of himself as a resolute defender of the country’s disputed name and identity.

Political analyst Suad Misini said that populism over the “name” question serves Gruevski’s party as the equivalent to a “nuclear political weapon” in the fight against the opposition.

It is being deployed in the election campaign to weaken its opponents who have had difficulty in formulating an understandable ‘name’ strategy for a mass audience, he noted.

By harnessing the name issue, Gruevski “defines the enemy of the Macedonians that people should fear” and profiles himself as “the saviour who will protect Macedonia from the enemy and from domestic traitors”, Minisi added.

On April 13, Macedonians will choose between four presidential candidates. A second round, pitting the two best-ranked candidates against each other, takes place on April 27, alongside snap general elections.

By Büşra Nur Özgüler

As the deadline for a framework peace talks quickly approaches, environmentalists and security strategists are demanding that the negotiators prioritize water issues, emphasizing the severity of the water scarcity.

Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME)—an umbrella organization that brings together Jordanian, Palestinian, and Israeli environmentalists— and the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) are drawing attention to the region’s water issues. Since the water problems have reached a critical point, they believe an agreement on the issue should be reached as soon as possible. Therefore, they asked Secretary Kerry to bring up the issue during the negotiations. If not a final peace agreement, at least a solution regarding these shared resources can be reached.

The water infrastructure in East Jerusalem can adequately provide for the consumption needs of 15,000 people, yet the local population numbers between 60,000 and 80,000. There are certain obstacles to allocating the water supply, including unplanned urbanization and illegal construction.

Actually, Jerusalem’s water companies, like Hagihon, are aware of the inadequate water infrastructure serving the Palestinian population living in East Jerusalem. Reportedly, Hagihon officials alerted the Israel Water Authority about the urgent need for additional water and infrastructure. However, there has been no progress to date. Officials at the Israel Water Authority stated, “the issue is far beyond the action capabilities of the [Israeli] water economy. Inter-ministerial cooperation is required to deal with the whole set of problems and risks involved and solve the problem once and for all.”

Gaza still worse

The Gaza Strip suffers from a much worse situation. A 60% increase in water demand is expected by the end of the decade. What is more, UN estimates that only 10% of the drinking water in Gaza is up to the standards of the World Health Organization, and that the groundwater reservoirs will be unusable as well as insufficient within a few years. As a result of these conditions, there are a significantly high rate of childhood diseases and illnesses in the Gaza Strip.

Nevertheless, PM Netanyahu has preferred not to mention the water shortages in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza either in his AIPAC speech or in others. The current peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are focusing on the basic issues and are trying to find a complete solution. Yet, the issue of water-resource allocation between Israelis and Palestinians residents can be solved before the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement.

On the other hand, the water crisis will deepen in case this process fails. Moreover, natural treasures like the Dead Sea and the Jordan River may be lost unless regional environmental cooperation can be achieved.

By Dr Kumar David

This article is an assessment of the impact of elections in two provinces on 29 March, two days after the government’s defeat at the UNHRC in Geneva.

President Mahinda Rajapakse’s United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) won both the Western Provincial Council (WPC) and the Southern Provincial Council (SPC) by what would normally seem comfortable margins, securing 53% and 58%, respectively, of the popular vote. At first glance it may look alright, but it’s the trend not the final numbers that matter. In 2009 these numbers were 65% and 68%.

A 10% slippage in the South, the President’s heartland, was unexpected. More serious is that for international (UNHRC) and local (economy and corruption like India) reasons the government is entering a period of difficulty. The UPFA’s share of the vote in Colombo District fell below half (45%), though still larger than any other single party, and it lost all but one of the individual electorates within the City. If there is one more setback of this magnitude within the next 12 to 24 months President and UPFA will have to pack their bags. Colombo does have a special role as a place from which trends and ideas spread to other urban areas. It is not illegitimate to ask if the writing is on the wall for the Rajapakse Regime, but it is premature to assert that the answer is known with certainty since trends can reverse.

This piece is not for researchers who themselves plan to go to the raw data or for those who want a broad-brush political assessment and not lots of numbers. It is for Indian analysts, who can benefit from processed data, aggregating major trends, and which makes its political assumptions transparent. These are separable; it is possible to make different political assumptions but still use the data.

There are three crucial criteria; (a) how much did the UPFA vote slip, (b) what was the trade off between the United National Party (UNP), traditional liberal-capitalist party, and the Democratic Party (DP), party of the ‘war-hero’ General Sarath Fonseka and, (c) how did the left-wing People’s Liberation Front (JVP) fare?

The government hoped to whip up post-Geneva xenophobic frenzy and win the PC elections by a landslide in preparation for later Presidential and Parliamentary polls. Did it succeed? No; it failed to mobilise its base which remained apathetic to Rajapakse’s fortunes. The regime’s support base seems to have had misgivings about whether the defeat was caused by “evil imperialists” or by government bungling. The opposition has been tirelessly campaigning that Lanka lost the vote for the latter reason.

The percentage of votes obtained by parties that obtained at least one provincial council seat in 2014/2009 is as follows. SLMC is the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress; Mano Ganesan is a popular Colombo based politician of Upcountry Tamil origin, his electoral alliance is called the Democratic Peoples Front (DPF). The symbol # means the party did not exist in 2009.

Western Province:

UPFA: Vote 53%/65% – Seats 56/68

UNP: Vote 26%/30% – Seats 28/30

DP (Sarath Fonseka): Vote 9%/# – Seats 9/0

JVP: Vote 6%/2.4% – Seats 6/3

SLMC: Vote 1.9%/2.1% – Seats 2/2

Mano Ganesan: Vote 2%/0.5% – Seats 2/1

All Ceylon Makkal Congress: Votes 0.6%/# – Seats 1/0

The Southern Province results are more remarkable because of the unexpected 10% decline in government support in its strongest province. This is more significant than the 12% decline in the WPC.

UPFA: Vote 58%/68% – Seats 38/33

UNP: Vote 26%/25% – Seats 14/14

JVP: Vote 9.1%/6% – Seats 5/1

DP (Sarath Fonseka): Vote 6.3%/# – Seats 3/0

We have to take careful note of the big winners, draw conclusions and consider what trends seem likely. General Fonseka’s DP came out of nowhere and polled 204,000 votes (9%) in the WPC; it did less well in the South, 76,000 votes (6.3%). The JVP polled as many votes in total as the DP; rising from 56,000 (2.4%) in 2009 to 156,000 (6%) in 2014 in the WPC and in the South rising from 72,000 votes (6%) to 109,000 (9.1%) this time. Fonseka’s party’s combined vote in the two provinces was 280, 000 and the JVP’s a comparable 265,000. These are startling if you consider this covers only two of the country’s nine provinces. The total number of valid all-island votes in the 2010 parliamentary elections was 80 lakhs and it would be significant if these two parties between them poll 15 lakhs next time.

In summary the important features are: (a) the UPFA vote in the WP declined by 12% and, remarkably by 10% in the SP; (b) the UNP, the historical party of liberal-capitalism has been able to hold off a challenge from the personally dicey and allegedly chauvinist Sarath Fonseka, and (c) the JVP vote share rose substantially. This last trend is crucial because it could demoralise the UPFA, energise the JVP, and knock common sense into Fonseka’s DP. An allied significant question is where did Sarath Fonseka’s 6 to 8% vote come from? Obviously, half came from the UPFA and the other half from the UNP.

As said before, the JVP vote in absolute numbers rose; conversely the UPFA vote declined in absolute numbers from 1.5 million (2009) to 1.4 million (2014) in the WPC and from 804,000 (2009) to a remarkably low 699, 000 (2014) in the SPC. The UNP vote, in absolute numbers, remained roughly unchanged in the WPC and rose by a small amount in the SPC. The benefit of a decline in UPFA vote went to several parties including the first time DP.

Now I am going to venture a few predictions. Fonseka’s space for gaining many more votes is restricted; he does not have an all island base like the UPFA, UNP and JVP. Secondly his luck was to pull support, in about equal measure, from the UPFA and UNP; this he achieved in the ultra-Sinhalese petty bourgeois electorates surrounding Colombo (Kaduwela, Maharagama, Kesbewa, Homagama, Mortuwa, Kolonnawa and Kotte) but it will be difficult to repeat on a large scale in other provinces (Central, North Central, North Western and Uva; and out of the question in the North and East). Sabaragamuwa Province may be the sole exception where Fonseka makes an impact. Hence I reckon the DP will not secure much more than half-a-million votes, all-island, if it goes it alone, in the next parliamentary elections.

From the spring in the step of its cadres and the bright responses I see all around, the JVP, unless it does something silly in the coming months, can set its sights on polling a million votes and securing 20 seats in the next parliament. It should aim high, there will be public response. There is time enough for a public discussion of strategies and programmes; I hope the JVP develops its next programme through a process of public consultation and discussion. The Single-Issue Presidential challenge will have to be meshed into strategy as an indispensable first step to abolish the Executive Presidency at the outset.

Mano Ganesan has shown remarkable advance from 12,000 in 2009 to 51,000 this time in the WPC and should aim at holding his gains. The SLMC vote declined from 6500 in 2009 to 1400 in 2014 in the SPC (serves the crooked opportunists right for such shameless betrayals the Muslim people). Its vote remained unchanged in the Western Province.

The writing on the wall seems clear; is this is the first crack in the dam? The Rajapakse goose may be cooked and the opposition has hopes of expediting its departure.

By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan

A day after the election results to the Majlis were announced, former Nasheed declared that the MDP would need restructuring and a new leadership. The Chairman of the party Reeko Manik resigned from his post over the election debacle and Nasheed has been made ‘acting President’ for the time being.

From going to a high point of getting around 49 percent of the votes in the Presidential elections, the performance of Nasheed and his MDP progressively declined, first in the local council elections and now in the elections to the Majlis with only 26 out of 85 seats. One of the newly elected MP from the MDP has defected to the PPM, thus giving the ruling coalition a two-third majority.

Nasheed said that the defeat was a result of multiple factors- undue influence, fear, money, choice of candidates, policies, campaign budget and lack of confidence. Expelling employees owing allegiance from companies with government shares and government positions had also a negative impact on the results. In many areas the voter turnout was low and removal of Election Commission members at a critical time had resulted in a lack of confidence of the people in the elections.

More interesting and perhaps more telling were the comments made by some of the readers in the press. One reader gave a piece of advice- ” Do not badmouth religious conservatives”. Another pointed out that radical moves like changing the age-old Katheebs to Councils did not go well with the people at the grass roots.

Another said that liberal positions on foreign policy, business liberalisation, foreign investment and environment did not play well with the people.

This could be true and perhaps the country was not yet ready for any radical deviation from the existing norms. No doubt Nasheed’s opponents played the Islamic card to make it appear that Nasheed is anti Islam which he never was. Not that his opponents were “ardent Islamists,” but they used the religion to make it appear that with Nasheed in charge Islam was in danger. One should recall the thirty and odd page scurrilous pamphlet authored by two of the present day high level politicians and circulated just before the February 2012 coup to show that Islam will be destroyed with Nasheed in charge!

Is there, therefore a danger of “creeping religious fundamentalism” in the country? One cannot say.

One can notice some despondency in the statements made by Nasheed. All is not lost for the MDP. No doubt, there are tough times ahead. It will be tough for them to deal with a ruling coalition with a two-third majority and a hostile judiciary. As he himself had mentioned, the MDP will continue to say whatever has to be said politically at every time.

Nasheed’s call to President Yameen to work with te MDP in reforming the judiciary and in sustaining the democratic system may fall on deaf ears! But he will have to fight on and not lose hope. His efforts to bring in democracy after thirty years of autocratic rule will be in vain if he loses hope.

The Party Congress of the MDP is scheduled to take place on June 6 and 7 of this year when, as mentioned by him new, educated and respected people with a leading rule to “inspire the nation” could take over.

By Manoj Joshi

The emergence of the Henderson-Brooks report during election season should have set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons in India. But clearly it has not. The reason is that most people today simply don’t care.

We are talking of something that took place fifty years ago, when most of its principals have passed away. It is important to understand what the Henderson-Brooks report is, and what it is not.

It was essentially a review of the Army operations in the Kameng Frontier division of NEFA (where Tawang is located in modern day Arunachal Pradesh) where India faced the biggest disaster to its arms in 1962, when IV Division collapsed without a fight, and the Chinese forces reached the foothills of Assam. The task of the two-man committee was to look at issues of training, equipment, system of command, ability of commanders and so on.

It was not a review of India’s China policy relating to the Sino-Indian border. Indeed, it was not even a review of the functioning of the Army HQ, which conveniently ordered that it be excluded from the scope of the Henderson-Brooks inquiry.

So, the inquiry officers, Lt Gen T B Henderson Brooks and Brigadier Prem Bhagat had no access to the papers of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Defence Ministry or the Army HQ. Whatever references they have made to these institutions came through the papers available at the Eastern and Western Command headquarters.

The essential conclusion of the Henderson Brooks report was that the government initiated a Forward Policy to check Chinese incursions into what it considered Indian territory in Ladakh at the end of 1961.

Unfortunately, the Army HQ failed to arrive at a correct military assessment of the situation and correlate it to developments in NEFA. Had a proper assessment been made, perhaps “we would not have precipitated matters till we were better prepared in both sectors.” Instead Indian policies triggered a ferocious Chinese response catching the Indian side completely off guard.

Unlike NEFA where the McMahon Line defined the border, there was nothing in the West. India had a notional claim, China had a strategic need. If the Indian case for the Aksai Chin was weak, the Chinese one was weaker. But because the region was vital for them, the Chinese backed up their claim by occupation and consolidation between 1951-1959. And when India sought to restrict the Chinese advance in 1961, a clash became inevitable.

The maps attached to the White Paper on States published in 1948 and 1950 showed the border in the region from Karakoram Pass to the UP-Nepal-Tibet trijunction as undefined.

The decision to include Aksai Chin firmly within India was only taken in 1953, and in 1954, Prime Minister Nehru ordered that a hard line be drawn there outlining the border. Older maps were withdrawn and new ones issued in their place. The fact that this was done unilaterally, without consulting the other disputant, China, set the stage for an inevitable clash.

There was no problem here till the Chinese consolidated their authority in Tibet by the mid-1950s. As part of this, they built a highway linking Xinjiang to Tibet which traversed the Aksai Chin plateau.

This road was very important for China as it was the only road that was open throughout the year and not affected by either weather or the Khampa guerillas that plagued the Sichuan route in the east and the central route via the Chinghai plateau.

The Indian case, scholar Steven Hoffman has pointed out, notes that the Indian case for Aksai Chin rested on nationalistic assertions, backed by some legal claims. While the Chinese claim was largely anchored on its strategic necessity.

In 1959, Sino-Indian relations reached their turning point; there was a revolt against Chinese authority in Tibet that resulted in the Dalai Lama escaping to India and being given asylum there. In September, through a letter, Zhou also declared that the Chinese did not recognise the McMahon Line and that in the Chinese view, the entire border was subject to negotiation.

The government now handed the border to the Army and suddenly became energetic in pushing a policy to contain the Chinese who had been advancing in Aksai Chin for the previous decade. Unfortunately, it did little to strengthen the Army to undertake the tasks it was asking of them and the outcome was foreordained.

The Henderson-Brooks report has focused on the Army’s faults in handling the border issue. But, if we are to truly learn from the sorry history of the times, the government needs to throw open the archives relating to the actions of Prime Minister Nehru, his associates and the Ministries of External Affairs and Defence. The Army was merely an instrumentality, a weak and in some areas incompetent one at that, as the Henderson-Brooks report reveals.

(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

Courtesy: Mid-Day

A federal district court today dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the targeted killing of three American citizens by U.S. drones in Yemen in 2011. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the case on behalf of the families of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and Al-Aulaqi’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman.

Plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman, said, “I am deeply disappointed by the judge’s decision and in the American justice system. What I am asking is simply for the government to account to a court its killings of my American son and grandson, and for the court to decide if those killings were lawful. Like any parent or grandparent would, I want answers from the government when it decides to take life, but all I have got so far is secrecy and a refusal even to explain.”

In May, the Obama administration publicly acknowledged responsibility for the killings, but the Justice Department continued to argue in court that national security concerns bar any judicial review of the government’s actions. In response to this broad claim, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer stated at oral argument that “the executive is not an effective check on the executive,” and in her opinion, she rejected the government’s argument that the case presented a “political question” that prevented the judiciary from hearing it at all. Nonetheless, she dismissed the case.

Said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Attorney Maria LaHood, “Judge Collyer effectively convicted Anwar Al-Aulaqi posthumously based on the government’s own say-so, and found that the constitutional rights of 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan weren’t violated because the government didn’t target them. It seems there’s no remedy if the government intended to kill you, and no remedy if it didn’t. This decision is a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy, and for all victims of the U.S. government’s unlawful killings.”

Said ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case, “This is a deeply troubling decision that treats the government’s allegations as proof while refusing to allow those allegations to be tested in court. The court’s view that it cannot provide a remedy for extrajudicial killings when the government claims to be at war, even far from any battlefield, is profoundly at odds with the Constitution. It is precisely when individual liberties are under such grave threat that we need the courts to act to defend them. In holding that violations of U.S. citizens’ right to life cannot be heard in a federal courtroom, the court abdicated its constitutional role.”

The case, Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, was filed in July 2012 and argued in July 2013. It names as defendants former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; former CIA Director David Petraeus; Adm. William H. McRaven, Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command; and Gen. Joseph Votel, Commander of the Joint Special Operations Command.

In 2010, following press reports that the U.S. government had put Anwar Al-Aulaqi on government “kill lists,” CCR and the ACLU filed their previous lawsuit representing Nasser Al-Aulaqi challenging the government’s authority to kill his son. The court dismissed that case on the grounds that Nasser Al-Aulaqi did not have legal standing to challenge the targeting of his son and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised “political questions” not appropriate for the court to decide.

Click here to read today’s opinion.

The Gezi events showed that new social movements have a significant potential to act as a forum for dialogue and unite different segments of the society under the commons; demonstrating how a conflict itself may actually be a means for transcending societal divides and moving towards social cohesion.

By Derya Yuksek

Speaking about the new societal awareness that have risen with Gezi events, we should first note that the Resistance provided a brand-new potential for dialogue in the long-term Kurdish conflict, which resulted in hundreds and thousands of deaths, countless unsolved casualties and displaced persons on both sides, and heavy societal wounds in Turkey in the last 30 years.

Emrah Ucar from Otekilerin Postasi (Mail from the ‘Other’), an emerging alternative media platform, explains this transformation process by giving an example from GeziPark during its occupation by citizens. He draws attention that during the 18 days of civilian occupation, the group representing BDP, Kurdish Democrat Party officially existing in Turkey, hanged a poster of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of PKK, who has been regarded as the chief of terrorists in Turkey, at their stand at the entrance of the park. Though many people and groups raised their discomfort and made warnings about this poster (mainly the nationalist groups and other groups that wanted to maintain the peaceful atmosphere in the park), this did not evolve into a major problem that could divide the protestors.

Ucar gives this example to emphasize how the people living in the park, as well as those supporting them by actively joining in the protests or solely visiting the park, learnt the importance of welcoming and co-existing with differences and viewing these differences as a plurality of views. For Ucar, these all point at the empathy and new ethics having emerged out of the Resistance, which is providing for a major transformation not only in the minds, but also in practice. This also holds true for religious and non-religious groups, which had become more distant, almost fragmented due to recent official policies. This is as well true for oppressed or marginal groups in the society; Alevis, non-Muslims, artists, gays and transsexuals, vegans and so on. In addition, although the core group of protestors was comprised of non-political activists, the political groups’ sharing of their experiences of protest, of police attacks, of organization and actions methods has many times been vital and brought different groups much closer. Ucar stresses that the result is the potential for a real societal peace, where consensus emerges from the streets, from real world encounters rather than negotiations made at official meetings; making a reference to the recent Peace Process undertaken by government with Kurdish officials, and the resulting Wise Men Council which was widely contested and proved to be meaningless after the real peace process initiated by citizens themselves during Gezi events.

In this regard, Lice protests were also a turning point. Following the civil protests in Lice, Diyarbakir on June 28 initiated by Kurdish villagers against a planned construction of a new military guard post, which was brutally attacked by gendarmerie with the use of arms and resulted in one death, several protests were organized in many cities across Turkey, where people from all societal segments provided their solidarity with Kurds and raised their voice against the killing. This event, which could stay as a minor event with a manipulated coverage in media one month before, has become a source of a nationwide discomfort and a symbolic solidarity with Kurdish people. This newly attained sensitivity towards the situation of Kurds, followed by the solidarity protests and campaigns for Rojava in northern Syria, where Syria’s civilian Kurds are becoming the targets of mass crimes by Al-Nusra Front, hint at important transformations in the peace process between Turkish and Kurdish communities.

In their statements, the Kurdish side also report that they welcome Gezi movement with hope and trust, noting that the process started with Gezi events opened a space for democratic discourse and contributed to the solution process for all the communities living in Turkey, which requires a joint struggle for democracy.

Certainly, no protest can or is meant to last forever. So how to maintain this hardly won spirit? The public forums, which initially started in Gezi Park and then spread to local parks in central districts of many cities, act as one of the major tools in nurturing this process of social cohesion. In fact, the forums well represent the bottom-up, participatory, pluralist and decentralized approach of the movement. As one of the representatives of Abbasaga Forum in Istanbul notes, the open dialogue environment in forums enables the practice of direct democracy and healthy discussions, where the established mindsets go under deep transformations.

Pointing that enabling dialogue among the previously fragmented even antagonized segments of society –in particular the ultra-nationalists and Kurds, the nationalists and socialists, Islamists and secularists- was not easy at the start, forum representatives state that after a process of self-expression, empathy and self-criticization, it was possible to transcend the old misperceptions for a large part of these people. They emphasize that citizens became aware of the realities as well as the ‘constructed realities’ through communication. As the resistance grew out of commons and of acting together despite diverse backgrounds, those continuing their presence at the forums are now thinking and discussing how they can grow the resistance, how they can construct the future, and how they can act jointly on common aims in order to create the common life they desire for, where their demands are visible, voiceable and equally treated, instead of the life provided to them. Here, the emphasis is not on the result but the process, and how this movement may contribute to societal peace in a tangible manner would become evident in practice, in the long term.

The Community Houses, which have been actively involved in Gezi movement, also share these views. Representatives note that the process initiated in Gezi Park has gone far beyond the park and spread to the neighborhoods, local parks and houses all around the country, which brought about a genuine transformation in the mindsets, causing deep changes in the culture of thinking and living, where the differences have started to disappear.

‘The key to social cohesion and peace is to avoid ‘othering’ the populaces and organize actions to address the common grievances of public, where people from all social segments come and act together without bringing political or institutional identities to the forefront’, says the spokesperson of Anti-Capitalist Muslims, one of the leading constituents of Gezi. ‘The identity of the oppressed is not important. We do not discriminate people according to identity, language, religion, colour, culture, or personal choices. We are interested in social justice and would step in when there is a violation of rights’. According to him, Gezi spirit has 5 main concepts: love, freedom, respect, pluralism and solidarity. The Lgbt movement, another important constituent of Gezi, also emphasize that they act against all kinds of discrimination and violence without any exceptions: ‘Democracy is for all, not for a specific segment of public’.

In summary, the opportunity of democratic participation and the experience of direct democracy in Gezi Park and in the forums thereafter presented brand new avenues for dialogue and a bottom-up peace process in the society, and showed that a broad scale citizen consensus and social cohesion could be realized by these kinds of movements, instead of peacebuilding attempts that are carried out behind the scenes, failing to include the citizens themselves.

So, how all these are related to new media?

First of all, without new media this kind of a nationwide organization of citizens would not be possible to attain or maintain, at least in the context of Turkey as it was experienced in previous revolutionary movements of 70s and 80s. In consideration of various examples and statistics provided throughout this case study, the power of new media in informing, organizing and bringing together people is quite evident. While Facebook posts, groups, events help to spread the word in one’s own social network.

Second, the new media have been, and seemingly, continue to be the major means of communication and information in Gezi movement. The protestors showed their independence from traditional media and the capability of forming their own information channels, not only through social media but also through alternative media sites, and perhaps more importantly, through internet livestreams that continue to cover public forums going on in the parks and other city spots.

Not only the protestors, but many people both from inside and outside the country –even the mainstream media- increasingly started to rely on new media channels for getting information and news. This hints at the breakdown of the traditional hegemonies over information and signifies a more democratic information flow, where new media may act as a watchdog of not only the right violations but also the process of social cohesion. The role of new media in enabling free and continuous communication among different societal segments, about their peculiar issues and grieves may not be disregarded.

Third, the new media contribute to the maintenance and sustainability of encounters made and relationships built during the protests and forums, whereby supporting the progress made towards social cohesion. Network connections have largely extended with the integration of various social media and face-to-face contacts (i.e. new encounters were added to social network contacts, Facebook users included twitter contacts in their network and many people started using twitter as well). It is also possible for forum participants and non-participants to follow the discussions and decisions from internet, at the general forum web site. In the future, these may even evolve into local sites for each forum, meaning a communication medium for each local community in a larger network structure. Any case, citizens continue to receive updates and information, post comments and enter in discussions on new media channels. This largely free and participatory environment provides yet another platform for promoting dialogue and understanding.

Considering the social media, the members of each related Facebook event, announcement or group, the followers of Twitter accounts of movement constituents, alternative media organizations, citizen journalists, activist groups and other participants -though they may not know each other personally- acknowledge that they are acting together on commons. This makes spontaneous re-organization quite easier.

The ease of organization would any case have political consequences as our information sources suggest: henceforward, when there is a protest, a meeting, a supporting event, a solidarity event or another type of action, people will join without much hesitation acknowledging their common aims and knowing that others would join. Latest experiences also confirm this point. In the case of Turkey, the protests started in late August, 2013 at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara to contest the construction of a highway passing through the forestland of this public university, have triggered nationwide protests as of September 6, which was continuing at the time of presentation of this study.

These all suggest that new social movements and new media are embedded in each other not only as a result of the ineffectiveness of traditional channels of communication, but also due to their inherent characteristics as participatory, pluralist and decentralized networks. While new media act as the basic medium of communication within and among social movements, the social movements fill the gap between online and face-to-face communication, eliminating the perceived dichotomies by bridging the social media and ‘the streets’. All the groups involved in Gezi protests agree on the benefits of using social media as an organizing field for real world events that would facilitate face-to-face interactions.

In general, what the Gezi events showed is that new social movements, fostered by new and alternative media channels and networks, has a significant potential to act as a forum for dialogue and unite different segments of the society under the commons. It has demonstrated how a conflict itself, may actually be a means for transcending the societal divides and moving towards social cohesion.

Derya Yuksek is a researcher and peace activist from Turkey. This is an excerpt from her study titled ‘Media as a Forum for Dialogue in Conflicts and Peacebuilding: New Media, Social Movements and EU Policies: with a focus on Gezi Movement in Turkey’.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a land mark treaty that was enacted to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and it was said that it would serve as a first step towards non-development of nuclear weapons.

This article aims to describe that the said treaty miserably failed to prevent the development of nuclear weapons as it has remained unable to address the apprehensions and threats that developing countries are facing. For example, Pakistan did not rely on the undertakings that were made by the signatories of NPT, and it knew that the promises made  in the said treaty are not sufficient and unable to restrain its adversary from acquiring more and more nuclear weapons. Therefore, it was compelled to acquire nuclear weapons. It can, therefore, be said that the  NPT is a weak treaty and is not capable of putting a restrain on development of nuclear weapon.

The NPT is an international treaty that was enacted to fulfill, broadly speaking, the following objectives (i) the spread of nuclear weapons technology, (ii) to achieve nuclear disarmament (iii) prevent the spread of nuclear weapons (iv) to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy (v) further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.

In nutshell, it can be said that ultimate purpose of NPT is/was to prevent the growth of nuclear arsenals and weapons. Now, the question arises that whether the NPT has been successful in achieving its ultimate objective or not? The answer to this question is unfortunately in negative. This research paper,  looking at the  case study of Pakistan, attempts to describe that the NPT never was fruitful in restraining Pakistan in becoming a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan did not consider the NPT sufficient to secure it from its adversaries, and had NPT been sufficient, Pakistan would never have spent a major portion of its budget in acquiring nuclear weapons.

Pakistan was a great advocate of the Atom of Peace program. This fact is evident from the initiatives that Pakistan took after the United States introduced the programs of Atoms for Peace. In pursuance of the said programs, Pakistan also established the Pakistan Energy Commission in 1956. Pakistan repeatedly reaffirmed that it was not inclined to build nuclear arsenals, and only intended to use nuclear energy for the peaceful and industrial purposes. Now the question arises then why was Pakistan constrained to build a nuclear arsenal especially when it was only in the favour of peaceful use of the nuclear weapons. The answer to all these questions comes in the following paragraphs.

It is a known fact that Pakistan is sharing its border with its bitter enemy, i.e., India. Pakistan had fought three wars with India, i.e., in 1948, 1965 & 1971. Pakistan, through experience gained in previous was, had come to know that India would leave no stone unturned to destroy Pakistan. Further, Pakistan had also been informed by its various scientists working in the International Atomic Energy Commission that India is determined to build its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan was informed by those scientists and engineers that it is imperative for Pakistan to build a nuclear weapon for its survival otherwise India would undermine and threaten the security of Pakistan. Pakistan, therefore, started its nuclear program for building a nuclear weapon in 1972 as a defensive measure to retaliate against any nuclear threat from India.

When Pakistan initiated its nuclear weapon program, it was at a time when Pakistan was also in conflict with the super power of that time, i.e., Soviet Union. The conflict was mainly regarding the transit trade issue. The Soviet Union posed a serious threat to the security of Pakistan due to the mentioned issue. To save itself from the anger and offensive measures of Soviet Union, which could undermine the security or integrity of Pakistan in any manner, it was necessary for Pakistan to have a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan was/is aware of the fact that the said treaty has prescribed no sanctions for the countries who would violate the mandatory provisions of the treaty or for the countries who withdraw from the treaty. It would never hinder steps taken by the major powers of world like Russia and India towards acquisition of nuclear weapon, which steps would ultimately put Pakistan in a weak bargaining position.

It can be observed from the above that in 1970s, Pakistan was surrounded by those states, which were hostile towards Pakistan, and intended to break up the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The circumstances of 1970s demanded that Pakistan must endeavor to acquire a nuclear weapon for the purposes of restraining other states from initiating any adverse action against the security of Pakistan. Former Chief of Army Staff General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig stated that, “as oxygen is basic to life and one does not debate its desirability, nuclear deterrence has assumed the life-saving property for Pakistan.”

A close reading of Pakistan’s national security policy suggests that nuclear weapons have played an increasingly important role in its defence and deterrent strategy since the late 1980s. Before the initiation of moves for acquiring nuclear arsenal, India had fought three wars with Pakistan, and if Pakistan had made no move to acquire nuclear weapons, India would have been blackmailing Pakistan, and the national and security interests of Pakistan would have been at a feeble and threatened position. Further, due to the acquisition of nuclear weapon, India has restrained from initiating or posing any war or nuclear threat to Pakistan due to which the national and security interest of Pakistan in not endangered in any manner.

It is also a known fact that the nuclear program of Pakistan was/is mainly Indo centric. Meaning thereby, it was formulated mainly to deter India from posing any nuclear threat to Pakistan, which may undermine the national and security interest of Pakistan. The nuclear program of the Pakistan, till to date, has managed to successfully deter India, and India has restrained from taking any sort of nuclear action against Pakistan. From what has been discussed above, it can be safely concluded that till to date the nuclear program of the Pakistan has remained very effective in safeguarding the national and security interest of Pakistan.

The above-said discussion can be concluded in two lines, i.e. Pakistan never believed in the effectiveness of NPT. It was rather surer about the credibility of India to launch a nuclear strike on Pakistan. Thus, Pakistan was deterred, and compelled to acquire Nuclear Weapon to defend itself from any hostile nuclear action from India. Pakistan did not have faith in the credibility of NPT, because the track record of NPT had proved that it could not restrain India from developing nuclear weapons in past and the treaties like NPT would also be helpless if India or other adversaries of Pakistan would decide to launch nuclear strike on Pakistan.

raza.svi@gmail.com
Writer works at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan