Algerian authorities on the eve of the April 17, 2014, presidential election forcibly dispersed a demonstration against a fourth term for President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. The authorities should abandon such repressive practices by rescinding the 2001 decree banning all demonstrations in Algiers, the capital, and by allowing people to exercise their right to peaceful assembly anywhere in Algeria.

The violent crackdown brings into focus the repressive tactics commonly used by the security forces. However, in the period leading up to the election, the authorities have responded unevenly to demonstrations. Since mid-March, they tolerated several public rallies in Algiers. Those included some organized by groups that favored boycotting the election and by others united under the banner of Barakat (Enough), a movement opposed to a fourth term for the president. In several cities, police forces merely stood alongside the protest marches without intervening. Before mid-March, the security forces had systematically blocked or dispersed the Barakat, or the pro-boycott activists who tried to demonstrate in Algiers, forcibly hauling them into police vans and releasing them a few hours later.

“Algerians who experienced a short period of respect for peaceful protest were rudely brought back to reality by the police brutality on April 16,” said Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “In the post-election period, officials need to end the blanket ban on demonstrations in the capital, which says so much about the lack of basic freedoms in Algeria.”

Several Barakat activists told Human Rights Watch that police stopped them as they walked down Didouche Mourad Avenue at about 4 p.m. on April 16, heading toward Audin Square and the Algiers University campus, where the movement planned a sit-in. They said the police detained them for as much as an hour on the staircases of nearby buildings.

Thousands of Christian pilgrims thronged the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem’s Old City Saturday amid tight security to celebrate the Holy Fire ceremony on the eve of Easter. Believers hold that a divine fire from heaven ignites a flame in the church, built on the site where Christians say Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and resurrected.

The flame is then passed between worshippers, candle to candle.

The crowd roared as the Holy Fire was lit, in an ancient annual rite dating to the 4th century AD to symbolize the resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday, an AFP correspondent said. The church filled with smoke from the flames, and scuffles also broke out between priests and pilgrims jostling to get a better view.

Worshippers from various Christian denominations then processed through the church as pilgrims filed outside to a clamor of church bells.

Earlier, police enforced tight security and crowd control measures to keep worshippers from surging into the church.

An Israeli police spokeswoman said tens of thousands of Christians attended the ceremony, packing the church and its surroundings. Pilgrims had to elbow their way through Damascus Gate, as all other entrances to the Old City were closed for security reasons for several hours, trapping some worshippers outside the walls.

UN Middle East peace envoy Robert Serry issued a statement denouncing what he called an “incident” before the ceremony. He said he and other diplomats visited the Easter procession to the church at the invitation of Jerusalem’s Palestinian Christian community.

The procession was stopped at a security checkpoint before the church “despite earlier assurances… of unhindered access”, Serry said. “The Israeli police refused to allow such entry claiming they had orders to that effect.”

“A precarious standoff ensued, ending in an angry crowd pushing their way through.”

After the ceremony, the Holy Fire was passed between worshippers in a procession to nearby Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity where Jesus is believed to have been born. The flame will also be flown out to Greece and other Orthodox countries.

The Church of the Sepulchre, one of Christianity’s holiest sites, is shared by six denominations — the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Egyptian Copts, Syrian Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox. The Holy Fire ceremony, a high moment in the Eastern Christian calendar, was attended by pilgrims from around the world.

By Öznur Keleş

Economic Development Foundation (IKV ) announced that they has founded the report on the Customs Union (CU) between Turkey and the EU highly significant, which launched by the World Bank on April 8th.

The Report discusses the economic effects of the CU on the both sides, and addresses a revised CU in order to solve the problems by regarding the views of both sides. In this context, according to IKV, it is very positive, since the World Bank considers the problems such as the visas, free trade agreements signed by the EU, and quotas.

It is obvious that the CU provides significant benefits to Turkey’s economy in terms of both the trade volume with varieties of exports and competitiveness. However, Turkey had to adopt the common customs tariff of the EU against third-country imports by 1 January 1996, and to adopt the free trade agreements the EU has signed and will sign with third countries. In other words, although Turkey cannot enter the markets of third-countries under the same conditions since it is not an EU member, it must automatically open its market to third-countries. Thus, this creates an asymmetrical situation for Turkey.

Moreover, IKV states that the World Bank Report and its approaches to the issues take charge of the raising awareness by considering the problems in the EU–Turkey relations. Then, IKV added that they support to make great strides in remedy of the deficiencies and in finding solutions to Turkey’s problem resulting from the CU. In this sense, IKV emphasizes that the EU’s support and its constructive attitude is crucial.

IKV concludes its assessment by stating that as stepping stones Turkey and the EU should overcome congestion will emerge as a result of the joint efforts of the two sides.

Nihat Zeybekçi, Turkey’s Minister of Economy, said that the CU will be negotiated until by the June 2014 because Turkey is affected negatively by the asymmetry between the EU and Turkey.

The suggestion of the converting the CU into a free trade agreement, which was propounded by the former Minister of Economy, Zafer Çağalayan, is not adopted as a policy. The attempt of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the U.S. has triggered the reaction formation against the CU.

The World Bank Report is important in order to create awareness for Turkey’s issue with the CU. In this way, the solution might be easier and more achievable for Turkey.

Dubai — long champion of all things biggest, longest and most expensive — will soon have some competition from neighboring Saudi Arabia.

Dubai’s iconic Burj Khalifa — the world’s tallest building — could be stripped of its Guinness title if Saudi Arabia succeeds in its plans to construct the even larger Kingdom Tower in Jeddah — a prospect looking more likely as work begins next week, according to Construction Weekly.

Consultants Advanced Construction Technology Services (ACTS) have recently announced testing materials to build the 3,280-feet (one kilometer) skyscraper (the Burj Khalifa, by comparison, stands at a meeker 2,716-feet, or 827 meters), CNN reports.

The Kingdom Tower, estimated to cost USD1.23 billion, would have 200 floors and overlook the Red Sea. Building it will require about 5.7 million square-feet of concrete, and 80,000 tons of steel, according to the Saudi Gazette.

Building a structure that tall, particularly on the coast, where salt water could potentially damage it, is no easy feat. The foundations, which will be 200 feet (60 meters) deep, need to be able to withstand the saltwater of the nearby ocean. As a result, ACTS will test the strength of different concretes.

Wind load is another issue for buildings of this magnitude. To counter this challenge, the tower will change shape regularly.

“Because it changes shape every few floors, the wind loads go round the building and won’t be as extreme as on a really solid block,” Gordon Gill explained to Construction Weekly. Gill is a partner at Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture, the design architects for the project.

Delivering the concrete to higher floors will also be a challenge. Possibly, engineers could use similar methods to those employed when building the Burj Khalifa; six million cubic feet of concrete were pushed through a single pump, usually at night to ensure the temperatures were low enough to ensure it would set.

Though ambitious, building the Kingdom Tower should be feasible, according to Dr. Sang Dae Kim, the director of the Council on Tall Buildings.

“At this point in time we can build a tower that is one kilometer, maybe two kilometers. Any higher than that and we will have to do a lot of homework,” he told Construction Weekly.

(RFE/RL) — The veteran leader of Crimean Tatars, Mustafa Dzhemilev, has been briefly detained by Russian border guards while entering Crimea from mainland Ukraine.

Dzhemilev was accompanied by Refat Chubarov, the leader of the Crimean Tatars’ self-governing body, the Mejlis.

Dzhemilev, who is also Ukrainian lawmaker, told Crimea-based ATR television channel that he and Chubarov were held at the Chonhar checkpoint for about an hour on April 19 before Russian border guards finally allowed them to enter the peninsula, which was annexed by Russia last month.

He said supporters travelled to the administrative boundary in some 50 cars with Ukrainian and Tatar flags to meet the two leaders.

According to Dzhemilev, the border guards confiscated his and Chubarov’s travel documents and had a telephone conversation about the incident, “most likely with Moscow.”

In what appeared to be a sarcastic reference, he described the situation at the checkpoint as “entering the zone of Russian democracy.”

Dzhemilev has reiterated his stance that Crimea is a part of Ukraine and his nation sees its future within the independent state of Ukraine.

Last month, Dzhemilev and the Mejlis refused to recognize the self-proclaimed, pro-Russian government in Crimea and the referendum on Crimea’s cessation from Ukraine.

Dzhemilev, 70, is a well-known Soviet-era human rights activist who served six jail sentences in Soviet prison camps from 1966 to 1986. He is also known for going on a 303-day hunger strike — the longest in the Soviet human rights movement’s history. He survived due to force-feeding.

Meanwhile, in related news, Russian migration authorities claim only 3,000 residents of the newly annexed Crimea have refused to become Russian citizens.

Konstantin Romodanovsky, the head of the Russian Migration Service, said on April 19 that the agency had already prepared 250,000 Russian passports for Crimea residents.

The agency says it plans to issue Russian passports to up to 1.7 million local residents.

Romodanovsky said those who have failed to apply for Russian passports “will not be held liable” for the absence of compulsory registration during the transition period, which ends on January 1, 2015.

On April 18, Ukrainian media quoted Dzhemilev as saying officials in Crimea are checking the residents’ documents “in every street.”

He said Crimean Tatars who don’t want to become Russian citizens have been warned they would be “fired from their jobs.”

By Alireza Noori

The geopolitical conflict and zero-sum game, which is going on between Russia and the West in Ukraine and has become more profound following the reunion of the Crimea Peninsula with Russia, should be considered as just another “juncture” in the unceasing rivalry over power in the international arena. The current faceoff will finally determine the new balance of power as well as political and security arrangements in Eastern Europe and among the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), while on the other hand, determining the future position of Russia, Europe and the United States in new regional arrangements. Although this “temporary confrontation” will be sooner or later replaced with “cooperation,” the two sides will do their best to emerge victorious from this strategic conflict which will certainly determine their “weight” and influence in other international developments.

Taking advantage of various “cards” and putting more pressure on the opposite side in other fields are among major steps to be taken by the parties involved in the ongoing confrontation. In this regard, the Western parties have taken such measures as initiating the third stage of the expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) toward east, strengthening the anti-missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, suspending the presence of and cooperation with Russia in major European and international bodies (such as Group 8 and NATO), and considering economic, political and other sanctions against Moscow. On the opposite, Russia has been emphasizing ineffectiveness of such threats while, at the same time, evaluating its playing cards by taking such steps as military buildup along its western borders, waging a new “gas war,” reducing interaction and cooperation with NATO in Afghanistan, ceasing cooperation with the West in Russia and changing its potion on the nuclear case of Iran.

Other issues aside, the background of big powers with different viewpoints and interests bickering over the nuclear case of Iran clearly shows that this issue has enough potential to turn into a playing card in the ongoing political game between Russia and the West. Of course, due to the direct relationship that exists between Iran’s nuclear case and international security, there is total agreement among Moscow, Brussels (European Union), and Washington over the general goals of the case in that all of them maintain that Tehran should not be allowed to develop nuclear bomb. However, it cannot be denied that all sides have been taking tactical advantage of this card as well.

The track records of Russia during more than a decade of international focus on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities show that while claiming to be sticking to its principled position on this issue, Moscow has been at times taking tactical advantage of the nuclear case. Fluctuations in Russia’s position on Iran’s nuclear case are a result of this fact. The cautious approach taken to cooperation with the West over Iran’s nuclear issue during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s second term in office (2004-2008), close cooperation with the West for putting more pressure on Tehran under former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev (2008-2012) and return to the past cautious approach to Iran’s nuclear case by limiting cooperation with the West for putting pressure on Iran at the present time (i.e., Putin’s third term in office) are major highlights of Russia’s fluctuating positions on Iran’s nuclear case.

The main and most important reason behind such vacillating positions has been the type of relations that existed between Moscow and Washington. In view of this history, now that tension is again the main characteristic of relations between Russia and the West, it would be logical to assume that this tension will leave its mark on Iran’s nuclear case as well. When discussing this possibility and the fact that Russia may take tactical advantage of the nuclear issue in reaction to the West’s pressure on Moscow over the situation in Ukraine, three main factors should be taken into consideration. They include the goals and interests that Russia pursues through Iran’s nuclear case, international conditions surrounding this case, and Tehran’s position. In strategic terms, Russia’s position on Iran’s nuclear case is the function of three main principles:

1. Preventing Tehran from building a nuclear bomb;
2. Reducing the possibility of military action against Iran; and
3. Preventing Iran from getting aligned with the United States’ interests as a result of pressures. (1)

On the other hand, four scenarios can be imagined for the future outlook of Iran’s nuclear energy program in a large-scale analysis:

1. Iran’s achievement of nuclear bomb;
2. Military action against Iran;
3. Submission of Iran to pressures exerted by the West; and
4. Reaching a nuclear deal and recognition of Iran as a peaceful nuclear power.

It is quite clear that under the present circumstances, the Iranian nuclear case is moving in line with the fourth scenario. Meanwhile, in view of the principled position taken by [Iranian President] Dr. Hassan Rouhani’s administration, which is based on averting the first three scenarios in favor of the fourth one, it would not be possible for Iran’s nuclear case to move anywhere close to the first through third scenarios in the short term. Therefore, under present conditions, Russia cannot take any action with regard to the first three scenarios and it is only possible for Moscow to direct its political maneuvering toward the fourth scenario.

This means that by recognizing Iran’s right to continue its peaceful nuclear energy program in more explicit terms and by following the same approach in its “practical policy,” Moscow would be able to get its position on the nuclear case close to that of Iran. By doing this, Russia would be able to build more confidence with Iran and prove its determination to stand in the face of the West’s bullying in practice. At the same time, Moscow will do its utmost to reduce the possibility of the first three scenarios because the first scenario will pose a challenge to security and geopolitical interests of Russia while the second and third scenarios will also help the West to meet its interests to the detriment of Moscow.

Despite the above facts, the state of affairs and present conditions indicate that Russia is losing more and more of its maneuvering room over the fourth scenario. This is true because the perception of “risk,” on the one hand, and “uncertainty” of the result, on the other hand, is sure to force Moscow to make more cautious moves. There is a “risk” because Russia cannot rule out the possibility that Tehran may take a decision to swap the fourth scenario in favor of the first one. When it comes to the first scenario, Moscow’s concern about the possibility of Iran building nuclear bomb is tantamount or even more than that of the West. It is noteworthy that Moscow has never trusted Tehran on this issue. Many people in Russia have reached the conclusion that Iran is insisting on the continuation of its nuclear energy program because the country is contemplating a military nuclear program. Therefore, they argue, although the Islamic Republic has sometimes stopped or slowed down the pace of its nuclear energy program temporarily, it is capable of speeding up that program any time it deems fit.

“Uncertainty” of the result is due to the fact that the tactical effort made by Russia to get closer to Iran under the present circumstances will not be necessarily met with a positive answer from Tehran. This is true as the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is well aware that such a positive answer can not only stir “unnecessary” concerns, but also pose a challenge to his government’s multifaceted foreign policy, which seeks to reduce tension with the world. It should be noted that the main factor, which has changed the course of Iran’s nuclear case toward a diplomatic solution and has relatively reduced pressures on and threats against the country, is nothing but the approach taken by President Rouhani’s administration and his continued emphasis on the importance of “moderation” in foreign policy and pursuit of “constructive” interaction with the world. Such a policy has been practically followed through a change in “method” and tactic in Iran’s nuclear case as well.

In line with these changes, Tehran has already adopted a pragmatic approach which gives priority to effective dialogue with the “main” party to nuclear negotiations; that is, the “West.” As a result, Tehran has not shown great enthusiasm for the “mediatory” role played by Russia and China. This new approach has been widely welcomed by the West and seems to be pursuing a wide range of goals beyond simple interaction with the West over the Iranian nuclear energy program. This approach will also reduce the maneuvering room for Moscow within framework of the fourth scenario. This situation was quite evident during negotiations over Iran’s nuclear energy program in the Swiss city of Geneva in November 2013, in which the role played by Russia was by no means serious and led to speculations that finding a final solution to the nuclear case would be possible even with Moscow playing a “less” important role.

Of course, it seems that Moscow is also well aware of the limitations it is facing for playing the “Iranian nuclear case” card in its current faceoff with the West. As such, Moscow knows that “incorrect” use of that card will inevitably lead to further marginalization of its role in finding a negotiation solution to Iran’s nuclear issue.

Alireza Noori
Ph.D. Candidate, Saint Petersburg State University & Expert on Russia Affairs

Notes:

(1) Noori, Alireza (March and April 2014) “Russia and the Variable “US” in the Ten-Year Conflict over Iran’s Nuclear Program,” National Security; nota bene. 2: 304-316 (in Russian)

Amir Mirazai Hekmati, an American citizen of Iranian background who is in prison in Iran accused of spying, has written to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to insist that he is innocent and to urge the minister to save his case from falling prey to the historic diplomatic differences between Iran and the U.S.

ISNA reports that in a letter to Zarif, Hekmati requests to be reunited with his family back in the United States after 30 months of separation.

Hekmati denies all charges against him and avers that he has never collaborated with the U.S. government against Iran.

Hekmati was initially sentenced to death but his sentence was then reduced to 10 years in jail.

He also writes that in the U.S. army, he has merely provided service as an Arabic translator and has never been trained in spying and intelligence matters.

Hekmati maintains that his trip to Iran in 2011 was to visit his grandmother. He was arrested in Iran in August of 2011 and charged with spying, a charge that has also been rejected by his family and the U.S. government.

Hekmati served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2001 and 2005 and was deployed as a translator in Iraq.

Greater Boston and its citizens are the focus of media attention in recognition of the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings that took three innocent lives and injured over 264 people, some of them severely. City leaders praised the heroism of the first responders and the deepened community spirit (“Boston Strong”). Addressing 2,500 invited Bostonians, including the bereaved families, Vice President Biden said “You have become the face of America’s resolve, not unlike what happened in 9/11…for the whole world to see. People know all about you. They know your pride, they know your courage, they know your resolve, they know who you are.”

There followed a procession down Boylston Street with bagpipers playing.

Meanwhile six thousand miles away in Iraq, there are terror bombings of innocent civilians almost every day. A sample:

On April 9, 2014, the New York Times reported that “The Iraqi capital, Baghdad, experienced a series of violent attacks on Wednesday when eight car bombs and two mortar shells killed as many as 25 people.”

On March 27, 2014, the Times reported that “A series of bombings in Baghdad killed at least 33 people and wounded dozens.” A 7 year old boy told his dad that he “had heard so many explosions that he could distinguish the different kinds of bombs.”

On March 9, 2014, the Times reported that a suicide bomber killed at least 45 people and wounded more than 100. A college student in the hospital remarked “my legs were no longer there.”

On March 6, 2014, the Times reported on bombings taking the lives of at least 30 shoppers and workers at public markets.

Such civilian deaths totaled 9,571 last year, according to the reliable group Iraq Body Count.

All this carnage, following the destruction of Iraq by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the aftermath, is occurring in a country less than one twenty-third the size of the United States with less than one ninth the population, and far fewer emergency and hospital facilities.

And this bloodshed is happening almost every day over much of their torn apart country. Iraqis know this will continue to happen in the coming days and weeks with no foreseeable end. There is no annual commemoration to mark their losses. Their memories of loved ones are blurred by constant fear of what was and what comes, day after day due to violence, hunger, poverty, disease-bearing contaminated water, the collapse of critical public services from electricity to health care to safety. This has resulted in the flight of more desperate people out of Iraq.

Flash back to March 2003, when the fabrications, secret cover-ups and propaganda of the Bush/Cheney regime led to the illegal, unconstitutional invasion of Iraq. Under the tottering dictatorship of Washington’s former ally, Saddam Hussein, who presided over a poorly equipped army, unwilling and unable to fight, and was surrounded by three far more powerful neighbors should Hussein have made a menacing regional move. Iraq was no threat to the U.S., had no weapons of mass destruction, and was the mortal enemy of al-Qaeda.

Nonetheless, George W. Bush – of the self-styled “kick-ass” Bush clan – dispatched “shock and awe” against a defenseless population and replaced the dictator, Hussein, with brutal warfare, death squads and sectarian conflict, which has resulted in over a million lives lost, and millions of refugees (many of them children), amounting to a sociocide in that ancient land.

When President Bush’s chief anti-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, left the White House in 2003, he wrote in his memoirs that Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to happen. Al-Qaeda did not have any presence in Iraq before the invasion, but the group is now wreaking havoc there, along with other affiliates in other countries due to Bush’s blundering. The U.S.’s empire-building both attacks and alienates local civilian populations, produces U.S. and foreign casualties and drains immense U.S. tax dollars needed here to rebuild our country.

History is cause and effect. Continuation of an Empire’s proclivity to wage war and regularly use force as a foreign policy will produce more far-reaching blowbacks. Waging peace, preventing conflict through diplomacy driven by justice – that great instrument of peace – has become an afterthought in Washington, D.C.

“Boston Strong” can be more than looking back on a tragedy with a stiff upper lip. It can nourish, from the cradle of the American Revolution, a rising sensitivity that tyranny abroad is a Washington export that defies our constitution and the better instincts of the people who stand against foreign wars for oil and an aggressive Empire unrelated to legitimate national defense.

Our collective compassion is helped by the development of fact-based empathy. That horrible tragedy at the Boston Marathon last year can lead to a constructive rapport with the Iraqi people who have suffered at the hands of the Bush/Cheney government and the lethal forces which the vicious invasion put in motion.

A city’s reputation does not always correspond to its reality. Florence, for example, is the sixth “most valued” city in the world. However, it ranks 57th when each of its dimensions is measured objectively.

The winner’s podium of the world’s “smartest” cities is occupied by Tokyo, London and New York, respectively, for the third consecutive year, according to the IESE Cities in Motion Index (ICIM), supervised by IESE’s J.E. Ricart and Pascual Berrone.

To establish this ranking, the researchers studied 135 cities based on 50 indicators along 10 different dimensions.

The Smartest Cities

Top 10 Smart Cities

Of the top 20 cities, 10 are European, six are American, three are Asian and one is Oceanian. Switzerland is the country with the best results overall, with three of its cities appearing in the top 10.

Digging down into the data, it is notable that Tokyo is best for “human capital,” but it comes in 20th in terms of “the environment” and 125th for “social cohesion” — a dimension in which half of the world’s top 10 cities fall short. Also, Barcelona is the city with the most improvement in ranking, moving from position 63 to position 51 in just two years.

The Search for Smarter Cities

There is no single model of success. To improve a city, the first step is to define the model to be followed and the areas in which the city should improve.

Yet it is not enough for a city to stand out in a single area or dimension: cities should strive to achieve acceptable minimum rates overall, as areas tend to be interrelated. For example, a city’s “mobility and transportation” models will have a bearing on “the environment.”

One of the main responsibilities of urban planners is to understand these links, and determine the opportunities and threats posed by the national context.

A Pioneering Initiative

Cities are ranked along 10 dimensions considered key to determining their efficiency:

1. Governance: The citizen is the point of contact for solving the challenges facing cities. Significant factors include the level of citizen participation and the ability of authorities to engage business leaders and local agents. Auckland is the top city in this area.

2. Public Management: The actions to improve the city administration’s efficiency, including the design of new organizational and management models, are considered. Tokyo is the best in this area.

3. Urban Planning: To improve the livability of any territory and to commit to smart growth, local master plans and the design of green areas and public spaces are taken into account. New methods of urban planning should focus on creating compact, well-connected cities with accessible public services. Berlin is the top ranked city for its planning.

4. Technology: Technological development enables cities to be sustainable over time, expand the competitive advantages of their production system and improve the quality of employment. London ranks first.

5. The Environment: It is imperative to improve environmental sustainability by supporting green buildings and alternative energy, efficient water management, and policies to help counter the effects of climate change. Zurich, Geneva and Basel are the greenest cities.

6. International Outreach: Cities that want to progress must achieve a prominent position on the world stage. Expanding a city’s international outreach involves improving its brand by means of strategic tourism plans, attracting foreign investment and stepping up its presence abroad. London ranks first once again.

7. Social Cohesion: Concern for the social environment requires an analysis of immigration, community development, care for the elderly, inequality, health system efficiency, public safety and more. Eindhoven is the most socially cohesive city.

8. Mobility and Transportation: Getting around cities, which are often large, and facilitating access to public services are great challenges for the future. Berlin is in the lead.

9. Human Capital: The main goal of any city should be to improve its human capital. This means that it should be able to attract and retain talent, create plans to improve education, and boost creativity and research. Tokyo ranks first.

10. The Economy: To promote a city’s economic development, this area includes strategic industrial plans, initiatives to spur innovation and entrepreneurship and more. New York is the economic capital.

Among its findings, the report highlights the importance of having a broad overview of urban management. The report also describes a delay in impact of public policies, the influence of the national context, the absence of a single model of success, and the discrepancy between cities’ reputations and their realities.

The United States, Japan and the South Korea held what officials called “a productive, substantial meeting” at the Pentagon to promote trilateral defense cooperation.

The two days of meetings, which wrapped up today, grew out of the trilateral summit hosted by President Barack Obama in The Hague on March 25.

In a joint statement summarizing the meeting, officials said the three nations reaffirmed that they will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state and that they agreed to coordinate closely to deter North Korean provocations.

The three countries also reaffirmed the necessity for a coordinated response and close cooperation with the international community with respect to the threat to international security posed by the North Korea’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation programs, the statement said.

In addition, the three countries shared the understanding of the importance of cooperating on nontraditional security issues such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and counterpiracy, and discussed additional ways to cooperate in these areas.

Mark Lippert, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s chief of staff; Yoo Jeh-seung, deputy minister for policy in South Korea’s Defense Ministry; and Hideshi Tokuchi, director-general of the Japanese Defense Ministry’s Defense Policy Bureau, headed the delegations for the meetings.

Israeli police on Saturday prevented UN Middle East peace envoy Robert Serry from celebrating the Holy Fire ceremony in Jerusalem, a statement from his office said.

UN Middle East peace envoy Robert Serry said in a statement that he and other diplomats visited the Easter procession to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at the invitation of Jerusalem’s Palestinian Christian community.

The procession was stopped at a security checkpoint before the church “despite earlier assurances … of unhindered access,” Serry said.

“The Israeli police refused to allow such entry claiming they had orders to that effect.

“A precarious standoff ensued, ending in an angry crowd pushing their way through.”

Israeli police blocked the entrances of all Old City roads leading to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre during the ceremony, refusing entry to journalists, international Christian pilgrims, and tourists. Swarms of Christians at Jaffa Gate began singing hymns upon being refused entry.

Serry said he was dismayed that a peaceful procession was disrupted by “unacceptable behavior from the Israeli security authorities.”

“Once again I call on all parties to respect the right of religious freedom, granting access to holy sites for worshipers of all faiths and refraining from provocations not least during the religious holidays,” he added.

An Israeli police spokesman did not answer calls seeking comment.

Believers hold that a divine fire from heaven ignites a flame in the church, built on the site where Christians say Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and resurrected.

The flame is then passed between worshipers, candle to candle.

The crowd roared as the Holy Fire was lit, in an ancient annual rite dating to the 4th century AD to symbolize the resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday.

The Ukrainian government has announced a pause in security operations to oust pro-Russian militants from buildings they have seized. Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia said Saturday the government has suspended its efforts for the Easter holiday.

He also said that the pause would give OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) monitors more time to organize.

In March, the OSCE launched a special mission to gather information on security and human rights in Ukraine. The group is also working to facilitate dialogue in the country.

A VOA correspondent in Kyiv says Deshchytsia commented after wrapping up a meeting with the OSCE and ambassadors from the EU, Russia and the United states.

Pro-Russian gunmen have seized Ukrainian government buildings in nearly a dozen eastern towns and cities. Ukrainian troops launched operations to retake the buildings.

In another development, Russian President Vladimir Putin said nothing should impede the normalization of relations between Russia and the West.

But he said the normalization of ties does not only depend on Russia. He said it depends on the West. Mr. Putin’s comments were released by Russian news agencies from a state television interview to be broadcast Saturday.

In a separate interview, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia had deployed additional security forces to the Ukrainian border in response to the instability in Ukraine. He commented on Rossiya 1 TV.

Russia has previously said its troops were on the border for routine exercises.

US threatens sanctions

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has warned Russia that it could face additional sanctions if it fails to adhere to a new international deal on Ukraine or moves its forces on the border into eastern Ukraine.

Thursday’s agreement, which followed talks between Ukraine, Russia, the United States and the European Union, calls for all government buildings to be evacuated and for the militants to be disarmed.

But it includes few concrete measures for ending the crisis, and many Western leaders are skeptical about Russia holding up its end of the bargain.

Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, told reporters Friday that the U.S. has been clear that it and its European partners “remain ready to impose additional costs on Russia” if it fails to meet its obligations.

She reiterated an earlier statement by State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki that the U.S. believes Russia has a responsibility to use its influence to restrain and withdraw the pro-Russian militants occupying government buildings in eastern Ukraine.

But pro-Russian militant leader Denis Pushilin in eastern Ukraine said earlier that his men are not bound by the deal and will only stand down after the Ukrainian government resigns.

Turkey’s main opposition party says the government’s new intelligence bill on expanding the country’s spy agency powers will turn Turkey into a police state.

Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu said on Friday that the bill grants Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) the “authority to kill.”

On Thursday, the Turkish parliament approved the controversial bill, which expands the powers of the country’s spy agency and grants it more immunity.

The bill needs to be approved by President Abdullah Gul before it becomes a law.

Kilicdaroglu also voiced concern that MIT will have unchecked power to launch covert operations both domestically and abroad.

The opposition says the bill will also let the spy agency monitor private phone conversations of citizens, and illegally blacklist people.

The Turkish government says the bill will make the MIT more efficient.

The Turkish opposition also says it will make legal efforts for the cancellation of the March 30 local elections, where the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) won a majority of the local government seats.

Original article

Tokyo is likely to provoke wrath from Beijing after starting work on a new radar station close to the disputed Senkaku, or Diaoyu Islands, that have soured relations between the two Asian powerhouses in recent years.

“This is the first deployment since the U.S. returned Okinawa in 1972, and calls for us to be more on guard are growing,” Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told media during a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony on Yonaguni Island on Saturday. “I want to build an operation able to properly defend islands that are part of Japan’s territory.”

The high-tech radar outpost will be staffed by up to 150 soldiers after it becomes operational in 2016.

The 30 sq. kilometer Yonaguni Island has a population of about 1,500, and no economic importance, and is far closer to China and Taiwan than it is to Japan’s major isles.

But the station will give Tokyo an outpost from the contentious Senkaku Islands, located 150 km to the north.

The uninhabited rocks, which have been in Japan’s possession since the 19th century, are located in a key shipping lane, and are thought to sit on large unexplored oil reserves.

Since the 1970s, China has insisted that they are part of its territory, citing historic documents going back as far as the 14th century.

The stand-off has spiraled as China has grown more assertive about the archipelagos off its coast, and began to rapidly bolster its defense budget in the past decade.

A perceived threat from China has also stirred nationalistic feelings in mainland Japan, and officials accused Beijing of “attempts to change the status quo by coercion” in the government’s latest defense plan, published in December last year.

Last fiscal year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe raised the defense budget for the first time in more than a decade.

The two countries have symbolically signaled their defense readiness by scrambling planes over 400 times in the past 12 months, and by complex warship maneuvers, with the latest belligerent displays happening just last week.

A key role in any future resolution of the dispute is to be played by the US – China’s biggest economic partner and Japan’s staunch ally.

The first state visit in 18 years by a US president to Japan will take place next week, during which Barack Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are set to sign a joint statement on strengthening their security ties. Diplomatic sources indicate, however, that the document will not include any specific mention of the Senkaku Islands, to avoid aggravating Beijing.

Nonetheless, last week, the commander of the US Marines stationed in Japan said that the US would help Japan re-take the Senkaku Islands if China ever landed its forces on them.

Meanwhile, those on Yonaguni have broadly welcomed the promised investment of government funds into the sluggish local economy, electing a pro-base mayor last year.

Yet a vocal minority remains vehemently opposed to the militarization of an island that currently only has two policemen. Onodera was welcomed by a demonstration of around 50 islanders demanding the cancellation of government plans.

“Becoming a target is frightening, they won’t talk to us about it, we haven’t discussed it,” one of the protesters told Reuters.

By Peter J. Marzalik

With the Kremlin’s attention fixated on Ukraine, the Caucasus Emirate, a terrorist group fighting to establish an independent Islamic state in the North Caucasus, threatens to undermine Russian domestic security in new ways.

The death of the emirate’s veteran leader, Doku Umarov, sparked an internal power struggle last fall that resulted in a significant shift in the group’s organizational structure and strategy. Although not initially well-received by certain influential cells in the organization, Umarov’s successor is now consolidating his authority and seems poised to abandon outdated ideology and broaden the movement’s scope of operational capabilities. Most significantly, the Chechen influence over the organization appears to have diminished.

The major question at this point is how rapidly can Russian security officials adapt to the Caucasus Emirate’s changes? A Kremlin that is distracted by events in Ukraine could easily lose ground in its efforts to contain the morphing insurgency in the North Caucasus.

On March 18, Kavkaz Center, the primary news portal of the Caucasus Emirate, officially announced the “martyrdom” of the movement’s seasoned chief, Doku Umarov. Widely recognized as a major military figure in the First and Second Chechen Wars, he rose to prominence in 2007, assuming command of the insurgency and proclaiming himself first emir of a newly formed Caucasus Emirate. Initially driven by national separatist aspirations, the group shifted toward the global jihadi movement and became an affiliate of al-Qaeda.

Umarov was closely linked to a spate of terrorist attacks in Russia over the past several years including the 2011 Moscow airport bombing, the 2010 suicide bombings on the city’s metro, and the 2009 bombing of a train from Moscow to St. Petersburg; each killed dozens of people and injured hundreds more. His last propaganda video called on Islamic militants to target the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Although instrumental in publicizing the Caucasus Emirate’s mission and in motivating its members, Umarov played a reduced role in recent years in operational planning. His departure from the scene, then, will not be a source of much disruption for the terrorist organization, some experts suggest. “The damage done to [the Caucasus Emirate] by the death of the leader is tangible, but will not be lasting,” Simon Saradzhyan, a research fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, wrote in an analysis published in March by the Moscow Times.

The circumstances surrounding Umarov’s death remain shrouded in mystery: speculation abounds, ranging from sickness to drone strike to even a coup. A lengthy delay in the confirmation of his death suggests his loss triggered an internal power struggle, likely among Dagestani and Kabardino-Balkarian jamaats (units) vying to claim the top spot from the long-in-charge Chechen leadership. After months of tense deliberation, a six-man council of provincial emirs selected Avar theologian Aliaskhab Kebekov, aka Ali Abu-Muhammad.

Umarov’s successor lacks the military pedigree of past commanders, but notably possesses theological training to push the Caucasus Emirate in a different strategic and operational direction. Based out of Dagestan, Kebekov is a former qadi (supreme religious authority) and the first non-Chechen to lead the North Caucasus insurgency. He ordered the killing of Sufi Sheikh Said-Afandi Chirkeisky by a female suicide bomber in 2012, according to Russian security officials.

In a January audio clip, Kebekov condemned the “nationalism” and “nationalist spirit” of the Chechens in the ranks of the Caucasus Emirate. Such rhetoric aims to further distance the group from the original Chechen nationalist movement of the 1990s and reinforce its global jihadi orientation and battle for an autonomous Sunni Islamic State in Russia governed by a strict interpretation of Sharia law.

In a continuing push away from Chechnya, he will likely strengthen operations in Dagestan, possibly pursuing a less aggressive form of jihad. Despite some opposition, the latest pledges of allegiance indicate some jamaats, including certain influential Chechens who manage key funding channels and media outlets for the Caucasus Emirate, are now accepting of Kebekov’s ascendancy to leadership.

The choice of Kebekov as successor also indicates that the Caucasus Emirate may extend its mission beyond the North Caucasus region. Recent operations provide sound evidence of this possible shift outward. Since 2011, hundreds of militants from Russia have ventured abroad to fight alongside the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front in the Syrian civil war. The organization also sought to undertake operations in the Volga-Ural region of Russia. In 2012, the Mujahedeen of Tatarstan, an extremist group with strong ties to the Caucasus Emirate, perpetrated a series of terrorist attacks against Muslim religious leaders in the Russian city of Kazan. More recently, suicide bombers from Dagestan killed dozens of people in separate strikes on a bus and a train station in Volgograd.

For now, Russian leaders seem intent on continuing a heavy-handed approach to counterinsurgency operations. On March 19, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev convened a government meeting in Chechnya to discuss ways to disrupt militant financing channels, as well as the threat of terrorist attacks outside of the North Caucasus. Meeting participants reportedly did not mull the implications of the emirate’s leadership shift.

Russian security forces have succeeded in killing key extremist leaders and hundreds of militants in the North Caucasus over the last few years, dealing serious blows to the organization. Even so, there is no shortage of new recruits for the Caucasus Emirate, due to the Russian government’s general disregard for basic rights, including religious freedom, socio-economic disparity and large-scale corruption.

Some observers suggest that under the present circumstances, the security threat posed by the Caucasus Emirate stands to rise. “The growing importance of the organization inside the Caucasus Emirate decisional structure represents an increased risk for terrorist attacks against touristic sites and transportation networks inside Russia,” wrote Jean-Francois Ratelle, a postdoctoral fellow at George Washington University, in a recent commentary.

Peter J. Marzalik is an independent analyst of Islamic affairs in the Russian Federation.

The outgoing Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard A. Falk, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution 5/1 his last report on the dire conditions under which the Palestinian people have to live.1

Falk’s final presentation addresses Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the wall in the eyes of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, and considers Israel’s policies and practices in Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) in light of the prohibition on segregation and apartheid. It also addresses concern in relation to the deterioration of the human rights situation of Palestinians living under the Israeli blockade in the Gaza Strip.

The report focuses on the wall and the 2004 Advisory Opinion; Israeli colonies and the fragmentation of occupied Palestine, the besieged Gaza Strip, the Question of apartheid and segregation, concluding observations and recommendations. Falk regrets that Israel even refused minimal cooperation in the last six years. The Zionist government expelled Falk in December 2008 when he tried to enter Israel to fulfill his mission as a UN Special Rapporteur. “Such humiliating non-cooperation represents a breach of the legal duty of members of the United Nations to facilitate all official undertakings of the Organization.” There has been no protest of the U. S. or any Western nations that usually are to head the protest front wherever human rights violations occur, with the only exception of the State of Israel.

Regarding the wall and the UN advisory opinion of July 2004 Falk hints at the obligations of the UN member states to urge the Israeli government to bide by the ruling. “The Court stated that all States are obliged not to recognize the illegal situation arising from the wall, and that States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 were obliged to ensure compliance by Israel with that Convention.” The International Court of Justice (ICJ) suggested that the United Nations, the General Assembly and the Security Council should consider further action to overcome this illegal situation.

Although 85 per cent of the planned route of the wall lies within the West Bank, and will cut off and isolate 9.4 per cent of the West Bank territory, including East Jerusalem and so-called No-Man’s land, the Israeli Ministry of Defense states that the “Security Fence” does not annex territories to the State of Israel, nor will it change the status of the residents of these areas. Israel pretends that the wall was built out of security reasons, however, the ICJ came to the conclusion that “the grave infringements of the rights of Palestinians caused by the wall in the OPT were not necessary to satisfy legitimate Israeli security requirements”. The wall inflicted further hardship to the residents of the OPT, especially hard hit are the people who are isolated from the rest of the West Bank. They are living under a strict permit regime and other restrictions. In addition, they are exposed to the whims and caprice of the border guards.

Richard Falk shows that the expansion of settler colonies continues unabated, in defiance of its international law obligations. The Israeli NGO, Peace Now, calls attention to “Bibi’s Settlements Boom”. Falk sees the settlement announcements as “provocative” because they were accompanied by the release of prisoners; or they were used to expose the Obama administration publicly. Special problems are the so-called outposts, which are considered also illegal by Israeli law.
According to Falk, the Israeli government does everything to change the demographic balance in East Jerusalem. “Israel actively seeks to undermine the Palestinian presence to serve its goal of preserving a Jewish majority in East Jerusalem.” The methods are to revoke the resident status and the right to live in East Jerusalem and to demolish houses. Since 1996, an estimated 11,023 Jerusalemites lost their right of residence in East Jerusalem, and from 2004 to 2013, 479 housing units were destroyed in East Jerusalem, displacing 1,892 Palestinians.

The hardest hit Palestinians live in the besieged Gaza Strip. Although Israel withdrew its occupying forces unilaterally from the Gaza Strip in 2005, this territory is still considered “occupied” by the United Nations. Israel has locked up not only 1.6 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, but it also controls the area on water, on land and from the air. No one can leave this open-air prison without a permit from the Israelis. The Special Rapporteur mentions also the military attack “Cast Lead” from December 2008 to January 2009, which killed 1,400 people and caused heavy damage on the infrastructure, and “Pillar of Defense” in November 2012.

Already Falk’s predecessor, John Dugard, recommended that the ICJ should be asked to assess whether the prolonged occupation possess elements of “colonialism”, “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” inconsistent with international human rights law (IHL) in circumstances of belligerent occupation and the denial of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people. Since no advisory opinion has been sought, Richard Falk discusses Israeli policies and practices, through the lens of the international prohibition upon ethnic discrimination, segregation, and apartheid. According to international law and all relevant conventions Israel met all the requirements of these three allegations.

The UN report mentions also the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian detainees, and an UNICEF report, which Falk quotes, sates the same for children, too. Palestinian children are tried under military law, whereas Israeli law applies to Israeli children in the occupied territories. The report still counts a large number of further human rights violations by the Israeli occupying regime and speaks of a policy of “systematic oppression”.

Falk concludes: “Through prolonged occupation, with practices and policies of apartheid and segregation, ongoing expansion of settlements, and continual construction of the wall arguably amounting to de facto annexation of parts of the occupied Palestinian territory; the denial by Israel of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people is evident.” Israel’s violations of Palestinians human rights are “deliberate, organized, and institutionalized”, writes the Special Rapporteur.

Despite the devastating findings of the UN report on Palestine, the Abbas regime is still continuing the so-called peace talks. They might be dragging on till year’s end. The political result will be nil, and a possible “agreement” will be null and void because the Abbas men lack legitimacy. The Clique in Ramallah is not democratically elected, whereas the elected Prime Minister is “imprisoned” in Gaza. The only body, which has the right to negotiate with the Israeli government, is the Palestinian National Council (PNC) that could speak for all the Palestinians in the world. The PNC has to be reinstated by democratic elections, which will take a while. Until then, there must be no further “peace talks”.

Dr. Ludwig Watzal works as a journalist and editor in Bonn, Germany. He runs the bilingual blog “between the lines”. http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.de/

Two foreigners died of MERS in Jeddah, the Health Ministry said Saturday, as fears rise over the spreading respiratory virus in the Kingdom’s commercial hub.

The ministry said five more people were infected with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in the western city, including two foreign medics aged 54.

The latest deaths of a 64-year-old and 44-year-old, whose nationalities were undisclosed, bring to 75 the overall number of people to have died of MERS in Saudi Arabia, from a total of 231 infections.

Meanwhile, officials in the Philippines said the government was stepping up its defense against the deadly virus, with the large numbers of Filipino workers in the Middle East seen as potential carriers.

“It is important that families, friends and members of their local communities fully understand all that must be known about the MERS coronavirus,” Health Secretary Enrique Ona told a news conference.

A male Filipino nurse who had tested positive for the MERS virus in the UAE returned to the Philippines on Tuesday, according to the health department.

The man was later tracked down and quarantined, along with relatives who picked him up at Manila airport, as part of the increased monitoring procedures, but all of them were subsequently found to be free of the virus, Ona said.

Health authorities were continuing to track the rest of the 418 passengers on the same Etihad Airways flight, including 45 foreigners, so they could also be tested, he added. The virus has a two-week incubation period, so all those passengers “are still deemed to be at risk”, Ona said.

A total of 119 passengers had so far been contacted by the health department, and all 40 who were tested yielded negative results, Ona said.

While the WHO has not declared a MERS epidemic, the Philippines has stepped up monitoring as it has a large number of workers in the Middle East, many of whom work in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Ona said Filipinos traveling to and from their work in the region were being warned of the dangers of the virus and advised to seek immediate attention if they have any symptoms.

Lyndon Leesuy, the health department’s program manager for emerging diseases, said all air travelers who exhibit symptoms at Philippine airports would be required to undergo testing for the virus as part of the “active surveillance” status.

President Benigno Aquino has ordered the health department to “create a heightened awareness among our people and prevent the spread of this communicable disease”, Ona said.

By Alsir Sidahmed

It is not an academic debate or even one within think tanks, but a simple statement stating the obvious that politics are governed by the economy, where oil occupies a central position. And for that, it is Saudi Arabia that can tip the balance.

The message was transmitted quickly through the airwaves given the fact it is said by no other person that Vladimir Putin, Russia’s strong man and at a critical time where the Western capitals were wondering what to do given Moscow’s recent moves in Ukraine.

Though it was the twelfth session of Q & A on a television program between Putin and his audience, the Russian “tsar” was speaking calmly like a businessman who knows where he stands in reality vis-a-vis his rivals given the competitive edge he enjoys.

In a cold tone, he said that the West could try to hurt Russia through its efforts to influence the energy market, but such efforts would ‘backfire.’

He pointed to the fact that Europe depends on Russian gas supplies to meet one-third of its needs, which makes it impossible for European capitals to stop buying Russian gas.

Moreover, if prices are to drop that will not affect Russia alone, but also the burgeoning US shale oil and gas industry and more seriously it will affect the green pack, which is the main currency used by the world oil and gas market.

The debate on possible Western sanctions against Russia looks tempting given the fact that Moscow is depending more and more on oil and gas revenue.

Last year’s figures show that more than 50 percent of the country’s national budget depends on these two revenue sources. Oil netted $191 billion last year to the country coffers, while gas contribution amounted to $28 billion.

That brought to the fore the simple question whether the West can apply sanctions as it did with Tehran. But Russia is not Iran.

Moreover, Europe in particular depends on Russia more than it depended on Iran. That brings in some question marks about the moral standing of the much talked about and practiced sanction.

As it stands, it seems they are fine to apply if they did not end up with countries imposing them shooting their own foot and are mainly directed to satisfy the domestic scene.

And that is why some of the Western strategists advised that Riyadh be persuaded to cut its oil production to help punish Russia.

Regardless of what Putin said about the ‘”warm and candid” Saudi-Russian relations, the question is whether it is in the interest of the Kingdom to pursue goals set by others.

Some of the think tankers were suggesting that Washington should persuade Riyadh to apply such pressures and went even to say that the Kingdom did something similar against Russia in the early 1980s, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That is simply not true or mere coincidence.

Then the main concern for Riyadh as far is oil is concerned was how to reduce oil prices, which it sees were threatening the long-term interest of the oil producers and the Kingdom in particular.

To push for lowering prices, Riyadh opted to engineer a glut through opening its taps to pump 10 million barrels per day (bpd) and force lowering prices, which eventually happened.

Aside from the oil embargo of 1973 following the Arab-Israeli war, oil more or less was kept away from direct engagement with politics. Even the price war of the mid-1980s was carried out on purely business terms to do with the way the oil market was performing.

The bottom line in all this is the ability of Riyadh to carry out an oil strategy to ensure its commanding position through number of steps like having spare production capacity, different export facilities, flexibility in raising and lowering production and even deciding on the type and quality of the oil to be produced to meet the market needs.

However, such qualities and abilities are not to be used at the request of others or to serve others’ interests without even considering some issues that are of concern to the Kingdom like the Arab-Israeli conflict and the failure of Western capitals led by Washington to exercise some pressure on Tel Aviv.

Email: asidahmed@hotmail.com

By Ajey Lele

Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) is expected to become operational in less than a year from now. On 4th April 2014, Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has successfully launched the second satellite of this system, the IRNSS-1B, by using one of its most time-tested launch vehicle, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C24). This was PSLV’s 25th successive successful flight. The IRNSS will constitute of seven satellites. However, to make the system operational, four satellites are enough. The first IRNSS-1A was launched in July 2013. With two more satellites proposed to be launched during the later part of this year, the system can be expected to be operational by the end of this year or early next year.

IRNSS-1B has been presently launched into a sub-Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (sub-GTO) and, in the coming few days, it would be finally placed in circular geosynchronous orbit at 55 degree East location with the initial inclination of 31 degree with respect to the equator.

IRNSS is expected to provide two types of services, namely, Standard Positioning Service (SPS) to be provided to all the users and Restricted Service (RS), which is an encrypted service provided only to specific users. This system is designed for a lifetime of approximately ten years. It is expected to offer accurate position information facility to users within the country and up to 1,500 km from the country’s political boundary line. This system would provide a position accuracy of better than 20 meters in the primary service area. The performance of the IRNSS-1A which was lunched almost ten months back has been confirmed satisfactory and now shortly ISRO would be starting the orbit test and evaluation process for IRNSS-1B.

With the advent of mobile telephones offering multifunction facilities, using of handheld navigational systems has started taking root in India in the recent past. In coming few years satellite based navigational tools are expected to be in a greater demand within the country. IRNSS offers range of applications from vehicle tracking and fleet management to terrestrial, aerial and marine navigation to integration with mobile phones to providing assistance in disaster management.

Globally, the most commonly known navigation system is the United State’s Global Positioning System (GPS). This system has a long history and is in use since 1978 however, it has been made globally available only since 1994 and is presently the world’s most utilized system. In fact, all these years satellite navigation has become synonymous with the GPS. Such system offers real-time position, navigation and timing (PNT) services globally. Although GPS transmits radio signals to users free of cost it needs to be remembered that this system is under the control of the US Air Force. The system essentially came into being for the purposes of military and has significant strategic utility for the United State’s security architecture. It has 31 operational satellites flying in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) at an altitude of approximately 20,200 km. Each of these satellite circles the earth twice a day.

Erstwhile USSR entered into the satellite navigation arena at a much later date than the US. Thereon, Russian constellation called GLONASS became operational in 1995, however subsequently owing to the financial problems the system remained partially functional for many years and was not able to provide global coverage. Since 2011, this system has been once again made functional by the Russian authorities. Presently, the European Union (EU) and the European Space Agency (ESA) is developing their approximately 30 satellite global navigational system called Galileo which is expected to be up and running by 2020. This particular project has witnessed significant delays over a period of time and it is only now with the launching of four satellites it is anticipated that the system would finally evolve as envisaged.

China’s progress in the area of satellite navigation is impressive. They began with a three satellite based system called BeiDou Navigation Satellite System. The first satellite in this system was launched on 30 October 2000 and system became operational by 2003. An additional fourth satellite in this system was launched during 2007 and the system has a projected accuracy of 10 meters. China’s global navigation satellite system called BeiDou-2 (COMPASS) comprising of 35 satellites (five in geostationary orbit and 30 in MEO) is currently under development. Already, more than half of these satellites have already been launched. This system has started offering services covering Asia-pacific region since December 2012. The entire system is expected to become operational by 2020.

India’s current navigational system under development has got a different configuration than other global navigational systems. India’s requirements are regional and hence India is presently making investments only to develop a regional system constituting of seven satellites. Conventionally, navigational satellites are positioned in the Medium Earth Orbit (MEO). However, the four satellites of the IRNSS would be in the inclined geosynchronous orbit (IRNSS-1A & 1B are already in this orbit) and the other three satellites would be placed into the geostationary orbit (36,000km above the earth’s surface).

Japan is also developing a regional system. Initially, they started with the development of Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS) as a three-satellite regional system. But, during March 2013 it has been decided that this system would have four satellites while aiming at a final seven satellite constellation in the future. The system is expected to be in place by 2017.

Satellite navigation business market is found offering vast possibilities both for the present and for the future. The growth of this sector also offers significant opportunities to business houses to create new and innovative value-added applications for satellite positioning & navigation market. As per some satellite navigation market reports and estimates by experts, it has been projected that during the coming decade, the usage of navigation system is expected to increase significantly at a global level. The market is predicted to grow to approximately €250 billion per annum by 2022. Core revenues are expected to reach €100 billion in 2019. New smart phone capabilities alongside integrated tech¬nologies and multiple software based applications could revolutionize the market in near future.

Overall, a fully functional IRNSS would help India to reduce its dependence on the GPS and/or GLONASS. For all these years GPS is offering the degraded signal (36 meter accuracy) to all its global users. This degraded single is of no use for the armed forces. With IRNSS in place, in the near future, India would be in a position to fully cater for its strategic requirements.

For commercial use of IRNSS signal various equipment manufacturers would be required to make provisions to incorporate this signal. It may be noted that several equipment manufacturers from the Asia-Pacific region do offer BeiDou-enabled models. Luckily some of the devices available in the market like various phone or receivers have got the facility to accept all kinds of signals including IRNSS. Technologically, IRNSS is expected to provide better signal even for the civilian usages. ISRO has announced that IRNSS-1B has two types of payloads-navigation payload and ranging payload. Navigational payload operates in L5 and S frequency bands while all other global systems operate in L1 and L2 frequencies which are not able to correct the error that creeps in due to the changes in the ionosphere characteristics. The ranging payload consists of C-band transponder for determining the range of the satellite.

The uniqueness of the IRNSS is to have a system with satellites in the geostationary orbit instead of MEO. However, such departure from the global practice could also pose few challenges. Since S-band frequency has never been used in the past few experts are of the opinion that the problems could arise in miniaturizing the receiver antenna for S-band. Also, since the satellites are positioned at high elevation, they could restrict the system for providing accurate indoor applications.

For India development of its own navigational system was the need of the hour for civilian, commercial and strategic purposes. Few years back India had agreed to make significant financial investments into the ESA’s Galileo programme. However, finally India was forced to decide against joining this programme because they were denied the military rights of this system. Naturally, India was not left with any option and started articulating the need for the development of its own system around 2006. It is important to note that China has committed to provide Pakistan with a ‘military quality’ signal of its BeiDou system.

India needs to exploit the ‘regional nature’ of the IRNSS to the fullest. Apart from the Indian region, this system also has the capability to provide accurate observations covering much of India’s extended neighborhood. India could effectively engage various states from Africa, Asia and Oceania region by using ‘satellite navigation diplomacy’. Also, it is important to make systematic efforts to develop new markets. There is a need overall to ‘steer’ these scientific achievements to gain geopolitical and economic advantages.

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/Indiasatellitenavigationalsystem_alele_070414

The Russian Federation is currently the biggest supplier of natural gas to the European countries and a large part of the natural gas exported by Russia reaches Europe via pipelines that cross the territory of Ukraine. However, the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine have cast serious doubts over the future outlook of gas supply to Europe.

Although the European countries are willing to adopt a strong position on Russia over the crisis in Ukraine, those countries, however, are heavily dependent on the Russian gas. As a result, they are facing serious restrictions in their interaction with Russia.

For many years, the European countries have had serious concern about supply of their natural gas and have made efforts at various junctures to change the current situation. Such efforts have become more complicated recently and have come to loggerheads with the political interests of certain countries which are transit routes for natural gas pipelines. These pipelines carry the natural gas that is produced in the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region to European gas markets and, therefore, are considered to be of transregional importance.

Of course, the ongoing crisis between Russia and Ukraine can serve as a wakeup call and prompt all involved parties to find a political solution to this crisis after which the way would be paved for the implementation of new energy projects aimed at diversification of natural gas suppliers for Europe. Under these conditions, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been offered with a good opportunity to emerge as a new supplier of natural gas to Europe. As a result, Iran must be quite ready to take the best advantage of the historical opportunities that will be naturally created by the current political crisis between Russia and Ukraine.

In the meantime, Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan are playing a very important role as the main countries that sway control over Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline (TANAP). In fact, in order to become a major supplier of natural gas to the Western Europe in the near future, we must engage in close cooperation with Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan.

After international sanctions against Iran are removed, such cooperation would enable Iran to connect the existing Iran-Turkey gas pipeline to Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline. Of course, it should be noted that the future outlook for Nabucco pipeline project will also play a very important role in this regard. This pipeline is planned to reach the eastern part of Austria in order to provide a new route for the transfer of the natural gas needed by the European countries.

Political tension and steep rise in construction costs have currently brought this project to standstill. However, it should be noted that the European countries are feeling increasingly concerned about their heavy dependence on the natural gas coming from Russia and this issue may galvanize them into action in order to seriously follow up on the implementation of the Nabucco pipeline project.

If this project is carried out rapidly, it would be possible to commission the pipeline over a period of 2-3 years. The construction of Nabucco pipeline will provide a major route for the supply of the natural gas produced by the Republic of Azerbaijan to Europe. Under these conditions, it would be possible for the Islamic Republic to use the existing Iran-Turkey gas pipeline and fill part of the void that has been created in the European gas market. It should be noted that the pipeline that takes Iran’s gas to Turkey is currently active and it is possible for the Iranian side to further increase the capacity of the pipeline in view of its technical abilities. The key point here is that the European gas consumers should be convinced to look upon Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan as reliable suppliers of natural gas.

The main question, however, is what Iran should do to increase the chances for achieving this goal and realization of this scenario? Various factors should be taken into consideration in this regard, but first of all, Iran’s nuclear case should be concluded to a final solution.

In order to continue cooperation with the European countries, those countries should be convinced to consider us as a reliable and stable trade partner. In the meantime, we must note that the Republic of Azerbaijan is the most important player which can supply a large quantity of our natural gas to the European markets over the short term. As a result, we must currently focus on increasing our country’s interaction with the Republic of Azerbaijan. It goes without saying that reaching agreements with this country in this regard will be beneficial to both sides.

The Republic of Azerbaijan is planning to develop the third trans-Caspian pipeline. Using this pipeline, Baku will be able to extend Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline up to the gas fields in Turkmenistan.

Both Iran and Russia have already announced their opposition to the implementation of this project. However, considering the existing capacities and potentials for interaction between Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan, Iran must strike a deal with officials in Baku over this project. In doing so, the Islamic Republic must offer support for this project while asking the Republic of Azerbaijan to support the transfer of the Iranian gas to Europe through Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline. Such a deal will be very beneficial to our country and even if these efforts fail to achieve the final goal, Iran would have lost nothing. Of course, it is not clear whether Russia will agree to further development of over trans-Caspian pipeline. Even if Moscow showed the green light to this project, it would perhaps take years before this project is made operational. During this period, Iran would be able to export a large amount of gas to Europe. At the same time, Iran would be able to facilitate transfer of Turkmenistan’s gas to trans-Anatolian pipeline via the southern coasts of the Caspian Sea.

On the other hand, Iran’s cooperation with the Republic of Azerbaijan can evolve into new dimensions over the long term as Azerbaijan can help Iran with the implementation of a pipeline project, which is supposed to take natural gas from Iran to Iraq and Syria. This project has been currently stalled by many technical challenges and Azerbaijan’s assistance in this regard will be of high value to Iran. This country has good experience in developing multinational gas pipeline projects. At the same time, it has access to modern technologies through its partners and those technologies can be very useful for the development of the gas pipeline which will run from Iran to Iraq and Syria.

Source: Taajeraan Website
http://www.taajeraan.com/
Translated By: Iran Review.Org