Russian President Vladimir Putin has presented a draft law to create a gambling zone in Crimea, now that the Kremlin has declared the Ukrainian territory part of Russia, the BBC reports.

By law casinos are restricted to four special areas in Russia, all a long way from Moscow. Now Crimea will become the fifth area, under Putin’s plan.

So far only Azov City, a coastal area east of Crimea, has opened casinos.

Kiev accuses Russia of fomenting the current unrest in eastern Ukraine.

Pro-Russian militants occupying official buildings in Ukraine’s Donetsk region refuse to recognise the Kiev authorities. Their actions have fuelled fears that more regions could break away and join Russia.

Crimea is not only the base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – it also has a special place in Russian history as a holiday destination.

Crimea was part of Russia until 1954, when the Soviet authorities transferred it to Soviet Ukraine.

Putin has announced ambitious plans to develop the Crimean economy. It will be up to the new authorities in Crimea to decide the location and extent of the planned casino zone.

The new Crimean leaders loyal to Putin do not have international recognition.

In 2009 Russia decided to ban casinos from Moscow, where they proliferated after the collapse of communism. At the time Putin said it was necessary to halt the growth of gambling addictions in Russia.

The other officially designated gambling zones in Russia are Primorye, in the far east, Sibirskaya Moneta, in central Siberia, and Yantarnaya in Kaliningrad, by the Baltic Sea.

During Ukraine’s difficult transition from Soviet Communism the Crimean economy has suffered from corruption and neglect, which also remain rife in other parts of Ukraine.

Crimea’s many military staff and pensioners rely on payments from the state.

In a separate move on Monday, Putin signed legal amendments to make it simpler for Russian speakers in the former Soviet Union to acquire Russian citizenship.

Russian speakers make up the majority in Crimea and the Donetsk region, as well as neighbouring Luhansk region.

The post Russia Plans Casino Boom For Crimea appeared first on Eurasia Review.

I’ve just finished reading Leo Tolstoy’s remarkable book The Kingdom of God Is Within You. This was written in Russian and completed in 1893, but the Russian censors forbade its publication. It circulated in unpublished form in Russia, however, and was soon translated into other languages and published abroad. It had substantial influence on the course of history, perhaps most of all because of its influence on Gandhi.

The book is odd in several respects. In a purely literary sense, it is by no means a masterpiece, as Tolstoy’s great novels, written earlier in his life, were. In places it reads more like a set of notes for a book than as a polished work. For example, it contains many very long block quotations and much unnecessary repetition. However, Tolstoy’s mastery as a writer still shines in the brilliance of some of his formulations, especially in the second half of the book.

Odd, too, is Tolstoy’s own curiously uneven command of different aspects of his subject. In regard to the nature and operation of the state and the sociology of human interrelations in the socio-political order, Tolstoy’s clear-eyed insights cut to the quick. He makes even an analyst such as James Buchanan, who complained about people’s “romantic” views of politics and the state, seem utterly romantic. In contrast, Tolstoy’s understanding of economics was abysmal and leads him into foolish notions of the equivalence between state acts and capitalist acts. He seems also to have given no thought to what the consequences would be if his communistic preferences about the distribution of property were adopted in practice. Although he had excellent insights into the role of (what I call) ideology in the maintenance of the state-dominated social order, he entertained a view of how the dominant ideology was changing and would continue to change that seems to me completely lacking in contemporary evidence and utterly at variance with everything we now know about how ideology did change during the past century or so. He greatly overestimated the hold that Christian morality had on the souls of people in the West at the time he was writing, not to speak of later, even less Christian times.

Tolstoy is one of the most important Christian anarchists in history, yet his views on Christianity were anything but typical. For example, he regarded the various Christian churches as totally corrupt and as the propagators of false and spurious doctrines that only helped the dominant elites to retain their hold on political, social, and political power while oppressing the great mass of the people. Self-serving members of the upper crust were, in his eyes, willing to avert their eyes from the truth, especially the Truth of Christianity as expressed above all by the Sermon on the Mount. This sermon, indeed, seems to have amounted to not only the heart of Tolstoy’s Christianity, but to the bulk of it, as well. For him, Christianity was above all a commitment to love others as one’s self and to abstain from the use of force and violence, even in resistance to evil or in self-defense. Thus, as a Christian anarchist, he comes close to occupying a class of his own (though not quite all his own).

I plan to write at greater length about Tolstoy’s fascinating book for a future “Etceteras” feature in The Independent Review. Aside from its interest as a manifesto for Christian pacifism and anarchism, the book contains many anticipations of ideas later developed in economics and public choice, and it deserves much greater attention in these regards than it has previously received.

The post Tolstoy’s Remarkable Manifesto On Christian Anarchy And Pacifism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Temkin Jafarov

Development of ties between Iran, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and linking Iranian and Georgian railways via Azerbaijan correspond to the entire region’s interests, according to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Rouhani made these remarks at a meeting with Georgia’s new ambassador to Iran, Iosif Chakashvili, Iran’s IRNA news agency said on April 22.

Hassan Rouhani stressed that Iran is determined to connect its railway with Georgia’s railway through Azerbaijan. He went on to add that an access to the Black Sea via the Georgian Batumi Port is especially important for Iran.

“Iran is interested in developing relations with its neighbors, especially with Georgia,” Rouhani said.

The meeting also discussed the need to implement preferences to expand cooperation in the private sector between the two countries and increase academic links.

It should be noted that Georgian ambassador presented his credentials to the Iranian president on Tuesday, April 22.

Iranian officials were earlier planning to construct Qazvin-Rasht-Astara railway before March 2014. The railway’s route is complex and includes 22 tunnels and 15 special bridges. About 70 percent of the construction of 15 tunnels has been completed.

The post Iranian, Georgian Railways To Be Linked Through Azerbaijan appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — The heads of the European Commission and the European Council indirectly clashed Tuesday (22 April), over the procedure to appoint the next Commission President following the EU elections.

In an interview with the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Council President Herman van Rompuy expressed his opposition to the election of the next Commission President via a battle of “leading candidates” of the main political families at the European elections.

Parliament vs. ‘those who really decide’

Van Rompuy acknowledged that the European Parliament had an “important role” since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, but then added: “The difference between the parliament and those who really decide is very clear to citizens.” The low voter turnout in European elections is a sign of that, he added.

The statement infuriated MEPs engaged in the campaign to elect the successor to José Manuel Barroso. The European Parliament insists that the leader of the political group that wins the most seats in the May 22-25 direct elections in the 28 member states should be chosen to lead the executive Commission. However, the EU treaty says it is up to the European Council of national leaders to nominate a candidate, “taking account” of the elections after holding consultations.

Austrian MEP Hannes Swoboda, leader of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group in the European Parliament, lashed out on Twitter. “Scandalous”, he called Van Rompuy’s interview. “Clearly he doesn’t understand democratic process of #EP2014 nominations!”

Swoboda is campaigning for the election of German social democrat Martin Schulz, currently European Parliament President, to succeed Barroso. The two other major political groups have also put forward strong candidates. The centre-right European Peoples’ Party (EPP) has chosen Jean-Claude Juncker, the long serving former Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and the liberal ALDE group has elected MEP Guy Vehofstadt, a former Belgian Prime Minister, to lead the election battle.

Van Rompuy’s opposition to having public candidates for the Commission presidency during the next EU elections is not a secret. However, as the current Council President is expected to chair an emergency EU summit on 27 May, which will take stock of the European elections results, his personal views may have far-reaching consequences.

Van Rompuy also appears to clash with Barroso, who has suggested that it was his idea that European political parties present their candidate for the top EU job at the European Parliament elections.

Both Barroso and Van Rompuy are from the EPP political family, and neither is reportedly seeking re-election. Van Rompuy has said that his EU mandate, which expires on 1 December 2014, will mark the end of his political career [read more]. Barroso’s plans are less clear.

Artistic smile

Asked to comment on Van Rompuy’s interview, and say “who decides” for the appointment of the next Commission President, Commission spokesperson Jonathan Todd made an artistic smile and kept a long silence, prompting laughs in the press room.

He said that Van Rompuy had the right to express his position, but added that the Commission would take care of the good application of the EU treaty.

“But I think it is premature now to take a position without knowing what will happen after the elections,” he said.

Van Rompuy, a former Belgian Prime Minister, is seen by his political friends as a Belgian-style mediator to form a coalition in the European Parliament following the EU election. Belgium has the practice of the king appointing a mediator to seek agreements and coalitions between the different parties, which leads to the selection of a prime minister.

In particular, the liberals have been calling for a coalition between major political parties to be formed, to ensure stability for the coming years [read more]. Thus the ALDE, who are a much smaller force than the Socialists and Democrats and the EPP, hope that a liberal could get the top job.

The post Van Rompuy And Barroso Clash On Top Job Election Tactics appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Col R. Hariharan

Why Sri Lanka President Rajapaksa is tweaking the Muslim community, which by and large had been his loyal political partner?

Since 2012 the Buddhist fringe organization Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) has continued its attacks with impunity on individuals, institutions and businesses connected with Muslim cultural and religious practices and identity like places of worship, religious education, wearing of burkha, and Halal meat. Churches have also had their share of such hate campaigns.

In the latest infamous episode, last week BBS thugs disrupted a press conference organized by the Jathika Bala Sena (JBS) in Colombo at which the JBS founder General Secretary Watareka Vijitha Thera had threatened to expose the BBS leader Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara. The JBS General Secretary had been leading a campaign against BBS attacks since 2013.

The BBS was founded by two monks – Kirama Wimalajothi and Galagoda Aththe Gnanasaara after they broke away from the right wing monks party the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) saying it was not militant enough in protecting Buddhism. So true to their sentiment the BBS has been militant since its start.

It has been thriving on the paranoia generated by the belief Sri Lanka is not a multi-religious country but a Sinhala Buddhist one. Its core theme appears to be that Sinhala Buddhist identity needs to be protected from the threat of Islam and Christianity. Islamic extremism which was never a reckonable threat in Sri Lanka has provided the BBS a convenient whipping horse thanks to Jihadi terrorism’s global record.

According to an Associated Press report of January 14, 2014 at BBS rallies monks claim Muslims are out to recruit children, marry Buddhist women and divide the country. BBS monks make many accusations about Christian pastors making suicide bomb kits, Muslims taking children away to train in Pakistan without offering supporting evidence. It quoted the BBS General Secretary Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara as saying “This is a Buddhist nation, so why are they trying to call it a multicultural society?Not everyone can live under the umbrella of a Buddhist culture.”

The BBS has been able to channelise the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist passions by providing visible manifestations of Islamic and Christian identity as targets to vent their anger. These include mosques and churches, Sunday schools, religious gatherings, religious injunctions like halal meat slaughtering and certification, and wearing of burkha by women. Some of BBS concerns like the demand for abolishing birth control measures and advice to Sinhalas to stop using them to have five to six children to increase the Sinhala population might appear bizarre. But at least in some sections of people such demands are finding support.

By doing some deft tight rope walking between the two communities, Muslims have economically prospered. Some sections of Sinhalas and Tamils feel the Muslim have taken advantage of the period of LTTE insurgency when the Tamil business community was under siege. So there could be a class angle to the support extended to the BBS.

The BBS tactics seem to be working as its strength is growing in direct proportion to the heat generated by its message and the number of protests it organises against Muslims and to a lesser extent on Christians. In a show of strength, more than 1300 Buddhist monks and 15,000 people attended a BBS rally in Colombo on February 17, 2013.

In the year 2013, barely a year after it was founded in 2012, BBS carried out approximately 241 attacks against Muslims while Christians fared slightly better with 61 instances of attacks on them according to a report compiled by the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC).

The 50-page SLMC report titled “Religious violence in Sri Lanka ” was handed over to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mrs Navanetham Pillay by none other than the Minister of Justice Rauf Hakeem, leader of the SLMC!

Mrs Navanetham Pillay, presumably drew upon the SLMC report when she spoke at the last UNHRC session. In her oral report on Sri Lanka she spoke of the surge in incitement of hatred and violence against religious minorities, including attacks on churches and mosques, and lack of swift action against the perpetrators.

Apparently the success of BBS has unnerved the JHU which had considered itself as the sole protectors of Buddhism. It has added its penny’s worth to inciting anti-Muslim sentiments with its share of hate speeches. And other copy cat organizations of the BBS like the Ravana Balaya have come up to add to the mischief.

Many religious leaders including Buddhist prelates, civil society organisations and leaders of political and social spectrum have condemned the activities of BBS as a threat to national unity. But at the same time, BBS’s theme and some of the demands have found support from some of the Island’s prestigious Buddhist religious heads like the Assigiriya Maha Nayake. Some educational institutions have banned the wearing of burkha by Muslim students.

It is difficult to imagine such acts of lawlessness taking place against a politically important minority community without the knowledge of the hands-on President Rajapaksa. Beyond appealing to the people for national unity, the President seems to have done little to ease the growing feeling of insecurity of Muslims and Christians.

One would have expected the President to take serious notice of BBS’ anti-Muslim activities particularly after the SLMC leader Rauf Hakeem had presented his report to the UNHRC. But Rajapaksa’s immediate response was to severely reprimand Rauf Hakeem for submitting such report to the UNHRC. Other partners of the UPFA coalition accused the Muslim minister for “washing dirty linen in the public.”

The official line trotted out to explain government inaction is ludicrous. In early 2014, Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella called the anti-Muslim acts “minor agitations that are normal in any multicultural society.” According a report he said it was intended to encourage community members to work out their own problems adding “If things get more serious, we will take action…These kinds of things can ruin a nation, we are aware of that.”

The BBS is also involved in a slanging match with the All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) led by Minister for Industry and Commerce Rishad Bathiudeen after the BBS accused of Muslims of illegally settling in Wilpattu forests. The activities of BBS seem to have unnerved Bathiudeen who had been a long term loyalist of President Rajapaksa. The ACMC rejoinder said the apparent impunity with which BBS was acting raised questions whether it was running ‘a parallel government’ like the LTTE during its existence. The ACMC called for a ‘Commission of Inquiry’ to look into post-war incidents against minorities in general and Muslims in particular.

The Minister for National Languages and Social Integration, Vasudeva Nanayakara, who had been critical of BBS, in a recent interview to Ceylon Today said it should be proscribed by law, as it was disrupting religious harmony in the country. He said the dormant attitude adopted by the police, especially with regard to the BBS and its actions, was due to the political immunity that the organization enjoyed through the intervention of a high-ranking government official.

Significantly he said, “I can clearly say that the BBS is enjoying support from a high-ranking State official. That is why its members are behaving in such a manner. Even the police are lenient towards them owing to this. There is someone impeding the police from carrying out investigations against the BBS.”

The Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa had shown some interest in the BBS. He was the Chief Guest at the opening of Meth Sevana, the Buddhist Leadership Academy started by the BBS on March 9, 2013.

According to a media report the Defence Secretary in his speech on the occasion had said that he decided to attend the event “after realising its timely importance…. these Buddhist clergy who are engaged in a nationally important task should not be feared or doubted by anyone.” According to the BBS, it was Gotabaya who ensured products displaying Halal certification were withdrawn from the market.

Whether he would support the BBS’ unsavoury activities, unless it is a part of a political agenda is the moot question.

The Muslim community in Sri Lanka is barely two million strong, forming just 10 percent of the island’s population. Most of them speak Tamil, and like Sri Lanka Tamils, have links with their brethren across the Palk Strait in Tamil Nadu. Muslims, like other Tamil speaking minority, are divided vertically and horizontally along sectarian, and class and occupational affinities.

Despite these limitations they have been great survivors – both politically and socially – during the difficult years when they had to survive the LTTE-led Tamil insurgency. In fact, they had developed the fine art of survival not only in the war between the government and the Tamil Tigers but between the two major parties – the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).

It is evident Muslim political partners of President Rajapaksa are feeling frustrated by the failure of the government to rein in BBS and curb its anti Muslim agenda. If unchecked, the President runs the risk of alienating the Muslim community. Together with the Tamils who already feel let down by Rajapaksa, the two communities make about 20 percent of the national vote share which is vital for success in the Presidential poll.

Can the President afford to alienate these votes with the hope of increasing his support among Southern Sinhalas?

Of course, continued government inaction in checking the BBS’ free run would also belie the government’s sincerity in attending to minority concerns. And it is not going to help Sri Lanka’s case at the UNHRC when it seriously takes up implementing the resolution.

So what is the larger political agenda at work in allowing space for Sinhala chauvinist activities of the BBS kind? People of Sri Lanka would start demanding answer for this question from the President when the time comes.

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence officer, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com Blog: www.colhariharan.org)

The post Sri Lanka: Tweaking The Muslims – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By K.V. Kesavan

The Fukushima triple tragedy of March 2011 dealt a rude shock to the long-term goals of Japan’s national energy policy. Japanese governments since then have wrestled very hard to address the question of providing a viable national energy policy, taking into account the strong scepticism about the future of the nuclear energy which accounted for about 30% of the total energy at the time of the tragedy. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which was in power during 2011-12, showed its ineptness to handle the crisis and ultimately decided to opt for the total elimination of nuclear power from its national energy strategy. Its preference for a zero nuclear option was also reflective of the mood of the people who seriously questioned the wisdom of continuing to depend on the nuclear power as a major energy source. The DPJ government decided to phase out nuclear energy by the end of the 2030s.

When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took over office in December 2012, one of the questions he was called upon to address was: what kind of energy policy Japan should pursue and what should be the role of nuclear energy in the overall national energy strategy? From the beginning, the Abe administration showed its inclination to use nuclear energy as an important element in its energy policy. But it had to move rather cautiously as it could not ignore the strong public antipathy to the nuclear power. Further, the administration was not sure of the support it would receive from its own principal coalition partner, the New Komeito Party. There were also many within the LDP itself who were still not convinced of the necessity of the nuclear energy.

On 11 April 2014, the Abe government released its national energy policy — nearly 15 months after assuming office. One compelling reason for adopting the new policy was the recognition of the government that in the absence of nuclear energy, which accounted for 30% of the total electricity until very recently, Japan had to pay heavily for importing oil and gas from abroad. It is calculated that the use of thermal power, which involved massive increases in the imports of oil and gas, cost the economy Y 3.6 trillion a year. This mammoth increase in the imports bill had to be borne by the Japanese taxpayers and the Japanese households are now paying 30-40% more for the consumption of power.

Purely from the economic viewpoint, there is a case for a shift away from the earlier zero nuclear option. But any government in charge of the national energy policy at this juncture has also to carefully gauge the people’s mood and see that their concerns regarding safety are fully addressed if the government were to embark on reactivating the nuclear reactors. The Basic Energy Policy essentially seeks to steer a course showing its sensitivity to the public concerns as well as to the rising costs of conventional energy produced by imported oil and gas. But it has defined the nuclear energy as a “key base load electricity source” and announced that the operations of the nuclear reactors will be resumed after they have been cleared by the newly created Nuclear Regulation Agency with its tough tests.

The government, however, has also given an assurance that it will enforce tough regulatory standards and strive to reduce the country’s dependence on the nuclear energy as much as possible. While the policy has not fixed any ratios for the different energy sources, it has not closed its options for building new reactors. With almost all nuclear reactors lying non-functional, the influential nuclear power industry in Japan is worried about the time the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) will take to complete its screenings of the reactors. There is also concern that if the NRA applies its forty years operation rule, a large number of reactors would need to be replaced by new reactors very soon in the coming years and if new reactors are not built in time, it will have an adverse impact on the supply of energy.

Apart from the future of nuclear energy, the ruling coalition government gave considerable attention to the share of the renewable energy in the future energy scenario of the country. It is reported that the New Komeito Party strongly suggested to the LDP that the new basic energy policy should assign 30 % share to the renewable energy. The LDP opposed it on the ground that when the government was not inclined to state the energy ratios of various sources, it would be odd to mention it only in respect of the renewable energy source. However, it conceded to its political partner by fixing the ratio for the renewable at 20%.

Finally, the basic plan has stressed the need for continuing plans to reprocess spent uranium fuel and reuse the extracted plutonium. Finally, one of the serious questions that remains unresolved and would pose a major challenge in the coming years is how to dispose of the highly radio-active nuclear waste. In the meantime, the Abe administration is keenly interested in exporting Japan’s civilian nuclear technologies to foreign countries. The Diet has just ratified Japan’s nuclear agreements with Turkey and the United Arab Emirates which would provide nuclear equipment and technology to these countries on the condition that they would use those materials only for peaceful purposes.

(Prof K.V. Kesavan is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The post Japan’s New Energy Policy And The Revival Of Nuclear Power – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Though peace talks have restarted in Cyprus with an air of cautious optimism, a satisfactory and sustainable peace settlement needs to be based a collaboration between leaders, civil society and the wider public.

By Yeshim Harris

After a long break, a new round of talks has started again in Cyprus. Both communities are busy preparing their negotiation teams; their politicians and leaders are discussing their shared views and remaining differences; and external stakeholders are looking on with very visible interest. On both sides, the media are buzzing with interviews, bulletins and TV programmes, and political analysts overseas are predicting and speculating on the future of this small Mediterranean island.

Two years ago during the last negotiations at Greentree Estate in New York, the atmosphere on the ground and overseas was entirely different. The indifference seemed tangible, the media were quiet and the negotiation process itself was drowsy.

What has changed?

The recent report of the International Crisis Group gives a good summary. Although the aspiration of these talks – i.e. some permutation of a bizonal, bicommunal settlement – is not new; this time, the stakes are different:

Firstly, the Greek Cypriot Leader Nicos Anastasiades is seeking a lighter federal structure than his predecessors, which will be more appealing to Turkish Cypriots and Turkey.

Secondly, there is dialogue first time since many decades, between the leaders and the guarantors of the opposite side; i.e. between Greek Cypriots and Turkey; and between Turkish Cypriots and Greece.

Thirdly, the international community is taking a much closer interest in this round of talks, due in part to the hydrocarbon resources discovered around the island in the past decade.

Perhaps a further reason for such attention is the potential economic benefit of a settlement in light of the serious financial crisis the Greek Cypriot Community suffered last year – as well as the embargoes endured by the Turkish Cypriot Community over recent decades.

In the past, most conversations about the negotiations on both sides of the island began with a rolling of the eyes and a sigh that said: “Here we go again”. There seemed a general weariness of repeated attempts and a shared view that this had been going on for far too long. Everyone, quite frankly, had better things to do than to hope for the success of yet another peace process.

This time, however, the atmosphere is vibrant, even hopeful, albeit cautiously so. The deep, lingering scepticism remains. This is not the first time the stakes have been high, after all, and each time hope has crumbled into bitter disappointment.

What hasn’t changed?

The reasons for the failure of past settlement talks are manifold and some were very specific to particular circumstances at the time. One flaw, however, has characterised all previous attempts in Cyprus: talks have repeatedly been conducted with limited consultation or communication with the affected communities. It is no wonder that each time, the resulting decisions and proposals have been greeted with distrust by the islanders themselves.

So far, talks in Cyprus have consisted largely of bringing political leaders, the UN and the guarantors to the negotiating table. This traditional, top-down approach has created a pattern in which elected leaders have first made decisions on behalf of their communities, and only then reached out for their support. The preparation of the communities before and during the process has always been minimal, unsystematic and without a comprehensive feedback mechanism.

Over the years, attempts to engage the two communities in the processes have been deficient and, therefore, largely ineffective. In 2008 for example, the creation of technical committees for consultation was a step in the right direction but in the absence of a coherent structure, their work faded over time. The related series of public meetings were mostly question and answer sessions held on an ad-hoc basis and sadly did not facilitate regular, meaningful dialogue with the negotiation teams. This top-down approach has hindered a sense of public ownership, resulting in a fatal disconnect between political negotiations and grassroots reality.

How to create public ownership?

Despite the best intentions, political leaders alone may be unable to comprehensively address the mutable and multifaceted relationships between the communities in conflict. Negotiating behind closed doors can distort perspectives and leaders may find themselves lagging behind the changing dynamics within society. In recognition of this deficiency, formal negotiation methods in many other areas of the world have gradually been moving towards greater inclusivity; but, until now, the Cyprus peace process has stagnated in the old approaches.

Without the opportunity to understand and shape ideas and decisions, ordinary people cannot feel part of the process and, consequently, cannot own the settlement proposals. If there is to be any chance of reaching satisfactory and sustainable peace, public engagement must be an inherent component of the peace process. Inclusive dialogue needs to take place before and during, not after, the negotiations themselves. This gives leaders the opportunity to prepare their communities for a settlement and to mitigate the affects of potential scaremongering by hardline parties and rejectionists.

A self-created way forward for Cyprus?

In a conflict like that in Cyprus where two communities, as well as broader regional and international actors, are involved , the overall picture is a complex one. The need for the confidentiality of potentially controversial decisions is understandable, particularly at the formative stages. But does this mean absolute secrecy is needed until the very end of the process? Couldn’t a comprehensive system of consultation be designed by the respective communities, which enables open discussions and holds leaders to account, while retaining a degree of diplomatic discretion?

Cyprus today bears witness to the failings of a traditional, top-down approach to settlement talks. Experiences from other conflicts show that broadening the dialogue to include a wider range of opinions is both possible and fruitful in loosening negotiation deadlocks. There are many historical examples: Mozambique, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and South Africa. While none of these instances offers a panacea, there are lessons that can be learned from them. Until there is a structural reform of the whole process and the harmonious collaboration of leaders, civil society and the wider public is achieved, peace will be elusive. So yes, there are new hopes for success this time round in Cyprus, but are these hopes likely to survive using the old approaches?

While cultural changes and paradigm shifts are notoriously difficult and cannot happen overnight, they are possible. Old habits die hard but such a shift will break familiar patterns: A shift to a new vision; a vision in which a ‘peace process’ involves the whole of society and not just the political elite.

Yeshim Harris is the Co-founder and Director of Engi, a social enterprise that focuses on the effective management of conflict, nationally and internationally.

This article was published by Insight on Conflict and is available by clicking here.

The post Cyprus Talks Re-Started: Will New Hopes Survive Old Methods? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

To understand how thoughtless the latest US “peace process” drive has become, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theatre. One in particular who stands out is Martin Indyk.

Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was last July selected by Secretary of State John Kerry as special envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Under normal circumstances, the selection appears rational. Former ambassadors often possess the impartial expertise needed to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly seen as a neutral figure.

As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter earlier this month, Kerry dispatched Indyk to Jerusalem. On 18 April, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last-ditch effort to bridge gaps between PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The visit took place a day after intense talks between Israeli and PA negotiators. “No breakthrough was made,” an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting.

It was not that any progress was expected since both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict. These deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerry’s deadline for a “framework agreement”, slated for 29 April.

The Americans want to maintain the charade of the talks for reasons other than achieving a lasting peace. Without a “peace process” the US would be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. Successive US administrations have presented themselves as the honest broker in the process.

Of course, it takes no genius to realize that the Americans have not been entirely honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US is not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfastly in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example of this.

Indyk worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a right-wing outlet that has invested unlimited funds and energy into preventing a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Its grip over the US Congress is so strong that some critics have suggested that Capitol Hill is in effect an occupied territory of Israel and its allies.

Indyk’s most important contribution to Israel was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985. This is another Israel lobby outlet that has damaged the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using “intellectuals” and “experts” as mediums.

Writing in Mondoweiss last year, Max Blumenthal recalled some interesting statements made by Indyk at J Street’s first annual convention in Washington DC in 2009. J Street is another Israeli lobby group that has distinguished itself as pro-peace, deceiving many into believing that AIPAC’s dominance in Washington is being challenged. However, its statements and the colourful past of its honoured guests and speakers indicate otherwise Indyk, as Israel lobbyist, was indeed among friends.

“I remembered stumbling into a huge auditorium to hear Indyk describe how he made ‘aliyah to Washington’ during the 1980s to ensure that US policy remained slanted in Israel’s favour, and go on to blame Yasser Arafat for the failure of Camp David,” Blumenthal recalled.

He quotes Indyk as saying: “I came to that conclusion 35 years ago when I was a student in Jerusalem and the Yom Kippur war broke out”.

“I worked as a volunteer there in those terrible days when Israel’s survival seemed to hang in the balance and I witnessed the misery of war and the critical role that the United States in the form of Henry Kissinger played through activist diplomacy in forging a peace out of that horrendous war.”

These were not passing comments made by Indyk, but a reflection of the man’s undying commitment to a “peace” as envisioned by Israel – and this is the core of the ongoing crisis.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu never ceases to talk about peace, as does his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Even the Minister of Economy, Naftali Bennett, leader of political party The Jewish Home and known for his bellicose rhetoric, is an ardent advocate of peace.

This is not a peace predicated on justice or envisaged by international and humanitarian laws. It is specifically-tailored peace that would allow Israel to maintain a colonial policy of land grabbing.

Unsurprisingly, this is the same kind of “peace” that the Americans envision. Kerry’s new peace agenda is not entirely a rehashing of old agendas. Yes, it is that too, but it almost completely embraces the once far-fetched ideas of Lieberman and rightwing groups, that of annexations – the Jordan Valley – and “land swaps” in exchange of main settlement blocs. When Lieberman floated these ideas a few years ago, he sounded like a deranged politician. Thanks to Kerry, it is now part of mainstream thinking.

So Indyk, who has dedicated a lifetime to securing an Israeli-style “peace”, is now branded as the one attempting to revive talks and exert pressure on both sides like any good “honest broker” would.

Indyk is not the only lobbyist-turned “peace” advocate. Dennis Ross, a well-known hawks for many years and a strong supporter of the disastrous Iraq war, served as a special Middle East coordinator under Bill Clinton, and was handpicked by President Barack Obama very early on to continue to the play the same role in the new administration. Aside from the diplomat’s strong links to neoconservatives, especially those involved in the now defunct pro-war group, the Project for the New American Century; he also served as a consultant to the same lobby club founded by Indyk, WINEP.

It was no coincidence of course that WINEP, as other pro-Israeli groups, has served as an advocacy platform for Israel and fashioned Israeli styled “peace makers”. Interestingly, both Ross and Indyk blamed the Palestinians for the failure of previous peace talks. Blumenthal astutely highlighted Indyk’s J Street tirade blaming late PLO leader Arafat with “that big shit-eating grin of his” for the failings of the so-called Clinton peace parameters, despite the fact that Arafat had indeed accepted them.

Indyk reminisced: “I remember Shimon Peres saying to me at the time when Arafat had to decide whether to accept the Clinton Parameters, he said, history is a horse that gallops past your window and the true act of a statesman is to jump from the window on to a galloping horse. But of course Arafat let the galloping horse pass by leaving the Israelis and Palestinians mired in misery.”

Now, it’s Indyk, the die-hard Israel lobbyist, being sent along with another galloping horse outside Abbas’ window. We all know well how this is going to end, and we can imagine Indyk giving another speech at an AIPAC or J Street conference deriding Abbas for failing to jump.

The post US Pursues ‘Peace’ On Israel’s Terms – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(RFE/RL) — Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has called Russian airspace violations overnight a “provocation to war” and cut short a foreign visit to return to Kyiv.

Yatsenyuk, who met with Pope Francis and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in Rome on April 26, said he was returning a day early because of the situation in Ukraine.

He said Russian planes had crossed into Ukrainian airspace seven times during the night.

The Russian Foreign Ministry on April 26 denied that any of its aircraft had violated Ukrainian airspace.

In Kyiv, the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) said one of the members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) group being held captive in eastern Ukraine by pro-Russian separatists was in urgent need of medical care.

SBU said on its website that the OSCE group, believed to number 13 people, was being held in “inhuman” conditions in the separatist-held city of Slovyansk.

The OSCE said several officials from the organization were going to Slovyansk to negotiate the release of the military observer group.

It added that the separatists plan to use the group, which they have claimed are “NATO spies,” as a “human shield.”

Denis Pushilin, the self-declared leader of separatists in the city of Donetsk, said on April 26 that the OSCE observers “will be exchanged for our own prisoners [held by Ukrainian security officials].”

Pushilin said such a swap was the only way the prisoners would be freed.

Pushilin spoke in front of the occupied SBU security services building in Slovyansk, where the OSCE team was being held after they were seized on April 25.

It is thought that the group includes four Germans — three of whom are from the military — and five Ukrainian soldiers.

There were also four military observers from Denmark, Poland, Sweden, and the Czech Republic traveling as part of the OSCE team.

The OSCE on Twitter described the seized group as a military verification team sent to the region “following invitation from Ukraine under terms of the Vienna Document of 2011 on military transparency.”

Ukraine’s Interior Ministry says negotiations were taking place on April 26 for the release of the group.

Slovyansk separatist leader Vyacheslav Ponomaryov told Russian TV news crews that the members of the OSCE mission were considered “intelligence officers of NATO country members.”

He said the separatists do not believe that an OSCE mission should include “military personnel entering our territory.”

“I got reports that there was somebody there from the military headquarters,” Ponomaryov said. “It already doesn’t look good. People who come here as observers from Europe bring a real spy with them, it doesn’t look good at all. This is an example of the policy of double-standards.”

The Ukrainian government has asked Moscow to use its influence with the “terrorists” to secure the release of the abductees, according to RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service.

Andrei Kelin, Russia’s envoy to the OSCE, said on April 26 that Moscow will “undertake all possible steps” to free the detained group.

The U.S. State Department called for the immediate release of the OSCE team, with spokeswoman Jen Psaki saying that “there is a strong connection between Russia and these separatists.”

In Germany, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he had spoken via phone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about ways to stabilize the situation in Ukraine.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said it was working to resolve the issue of the OSCE captives in Slovyansk but added that Ukraine should have “cleared” the group’s presence in eastern Ukraine to ensure its security.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said in Kyiv on April 26 that “Ukraine must be strong and must repel the invader, so that he will never have such plans and intentions again.”

Slovyansk is one of about 10 towns and cities in eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian separatists have taken over government buildings and police stations.

The post Ukraine PM Says Russia Provoking War; OSCE Hostages Called ‘NATO Spies’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Leonid Savin

The date of April 26, 2014 marks the 28th anniversary of the catastrophic explosion of the 4th reactor at the Chernobyl power plant. This is the time when alarming news is coming to evoke concern over the future of Ukraine’s nuclear industry.

The use of US-produced fuel for Soviet reactors is not compatible with their design and violates the security requirements. It could lead to disasters comparable with what happened in Chernobyl. The International Union of Veterans of Nuclear Energy and Industry (IUVNEI) issued the following statement on April 25,

“Nuclear fuel produced by the US firm Westinghouse does not meet the technical requirements of Soviet-era reactors, and using it could cause an accident on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, which took place on the 26th April 1986.”

The IUVNEI brings together more than 15,000 nuclear industry veterans from Armenia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, the Czech Republic, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. It was founded in 2010 and headquartered in Moscow.

The Ukrainian state enterprise Energoatom and the Westinghouse Company previously agreed to extend the contract for the supply of US nuclear fuel for Ukrainian nuclear power plants until 2020.

Two years ago, there was a near-miss in Ukraine, when TVS-W with damaged distancing armatures risked substantial uncontrolled releases of dangerous radiation. Only by a miracle was there no disaster at the South Ukrainian nuclear power plant.   But it did not prevent the signing of the agreement. A Czech nuclear power plant faced depressurization of the fuel elements produced by Westinghouse in 2006, followed by the Czech government abandoning the company as a fuel supplier. According to Yuri Nedashkovsky, the president of the country’s state-owned nuclear utility Energoatom, on April 23, 2014 the Ukraine’s interim government ordered   to allocate 45, 2 hectares of land for the construction of a nuclear waste storage site within the depopulated exclusion area around the plant of Chernobyl between villages Staraya Krasnitsa, Buryakovka, Chistogalovka and Stechanka in Kiev Region (the Central Spent Fuel Storage Project for Ukraine’s VVER reactors). The fuel is to come from Khmelnitsky, Rovno and South Ukraine nuclear power plants.

At present used fuel is mostly transported to new dry-storage facility at the Zheleznogorsk Mining and Chemical Factory in the Krasnoyarsk region and storage and reprocessing plant Mayak in the Chelyabinsk region, the both facilities are situated on the territory of Russian Federation.

In 2003 Ukraine started to look for alternatives to the Russian storages. In December 2005, Energoatom signed a 127, 75 million euro agreement with the US-based Holtec International to implement the Central Spent Fuel Storage Project for Ukraine’s VVER reactors. Holtec’s work involved design, licensing, construction, commissioning of the facility, and the supply of transport and vertical ventilated dry storage systems for used VVER nuclear fuel. By the end of 2011 Holtec International had to close its office in Kiev  as it had come under harsh criticism worldwide. It is widely believed that the company has lost licenses in several countries because of poor quality of its containers resulting in radiation leaks. Westinghouse and Holtec are members of U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC). Morgan Williams, President/CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, works in Ukraine since the 1990s said at the ceremony devoted to  Westinghouse Electric Company and Holtec International signing contracts with Ukraine in 2008: “Today is one of the most important days since Ukraine’s independence as the efforts of these two internationally known companies will go a long way to assuring that Ukraine has greater energy independence. This is made more important by the fact that for Ukraine, energy and political independence are closely interdependent. I join all of the USUBC members in toasting the success of these two great member companies, as we all work to assist Ukraine on its path to Euro-Atlantic integration and a strong democratic, private market driven nationhood.”

Morgan Williams is known as a lobbyist representing the interests of Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil in Ukraine. He has close ties with Freedom House involved in staging “color revolutions” in Eurasia, North Africa and Latin America.

One more interesting detail is to be mentioned here.  Some time ago it was reported that according to covert accords reached between the Ukraine’s interim government and its European partners, the nuclear waste coming from the EU member states will be stored in Ukraine.  Being in violation of law the deal is kept secret.

Leonid Savin is the Russian expert on international conflicts, editor-in-chief of Geopolitica.ru news, analysis and forecast online journal.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

The post Westinghouse About To Hit Ukraine By Second Chernobyl – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Col R Hariharan

[This is the text of answers to a set of questions raised by the Editor, Political & Defence Journal, a diplomatic journal through e-mail.]

1.  What are your views on the South African initiative to mediate between Sri Lankan government and the Tamil minority? South African President Jacob Zuma has appointed Mr Cyril Ramaphosa as its envoy on Sri Lanka and he is due in Sri Lanka next month to take stock of the situation.

According to a report in the Sunday Times, Colombo of April 20, President Zuuman told the South African Parliament on February 13 at the request of Sri Lanka Government he was appointing Cyril Ramaphosa as South Africa’s Special Envoy to bring about peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Ramphosa is expected to visit Sri Lanka in May 2014.

Ramaphosa, deputy leader of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), is probably the ideal man for the job of a mediator. He headed the ANC negotiation team in talks with the National Party government in Pretoria at the end of apartheid regime. He was also the chairman of the South African Constituent Assembly which finalised the post apartheid constitution.  Now he is a potential presidential candidate.

The Sunday Times has also published an interview with R Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) on the South African mediation issue. At the invitation of South Africa he led a TNA delegation to Pretoria.  He has explained that President Rajapaksa had sought South Africa’s help in resolving the reconciliation process when President Zuma visited Sri Lanka to attend the CHOGM in November 2013. South Africa had invited the TNA delegation as a part of this initiative.

For a long time Sri Lanka had been against any foreign initiative for resolving the Tamil issue, whether it was insurgency or reconciliation. Of course, India had been an exception to this; even Indian involvement had been muted ever since its political and military intervention (1983 to 90) failed to yield expected results.And the Norwegian led initiative did not fare any better.

Even on the specific issue of South African style of reconciliation, Sri Lanka had shown its reluctance as late as May 2010. According to a BBC report of that period, while answering a question whether the ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)’ would be similar to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella termed it an alien experience. The government would be looking to “an indigenous approach, something home grown” to address the issue of reconciliation and lessons learned in the country’s Eelam conflict, he added.

Sri Lanka had to change its rigid stance after it was repeatedly hauled up before the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) for its flawed ‘indigenous’ approach to human rights violations and accountability. The UNHRC scrutiny had exposed the deficiencies of Sri Lanka’s much touted LLRC process in resolving the issues of accountability and reconciliation. Apparently, this had prompted President Rajapaksa to involve South Africa to in the process in order to gain some credibility.

2. What is the Indian response to this development?

The South African initiative would probably take shape only after Ramphosa’s visit to Colombo next month. So it is too early to talk of Indian response to the initiative. At the same time, India had been stressing the need for resuming the stalled reconciliation process which had been delayed by the negative tactics adopted by President Rajapaksa.  He formed yet another parliamentary select committee (PSC) to make recommendations on the issue. With most of the opposition parties including the TNA boycotting the PSC, its credibility has been eroded even before it finalised its recommendations.

India’s stress had been on resuming the political process for reconciliation and considers the full implementation of the 13^th amendment to the constitution fundamental to the process. During the last UNHRC discussion on Sri Lanka, India’s representative Dilip Sinha explained the Indian stand. He said, “… much more needs to be done by the Government of Sri Lanka towards a meaningful devolution of powers. It needs to continue to take specific measures towards broad-based, inclusive, meaningful and genuine reconciliation with the minority Tamil community.” He called upon  on the Sri Lanka Government “to make purposeful efforts to fulfil its commitments, including on the devolution of political authority through the full implementation of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of Sri Lanka and build upon it….As the closest neighbour with thousands of years of relations with Sri Lanka, we cannot remain untouched by developments in that country.”

India should be happy if South African mediation can bring this about. India has excellent relations with South Africa rooted in their shared history of struggle against colonial masters. They are also active members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) initiative. So India would probably have no objection to South Africa chipping in to trigger the political reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. And we can expect South Africa to keep India in the information loop when it undertakes mediation in Sri Lanka.

On the flip side, strategically South Africa’s entry into Sri Lanka introduces yet another external influence in what used to be India’s sphere of influence. However, the Indian sphere of influence is undergoing rapid change on two counts: the entry of China in South Asia (including India) and the expanding Indian interest in Southeast Asia with the implementation Look East Policy. So we can expect India to take South African involvement in Sri Lanka in its stride.

In any case, a new government is likely to come to power in New Delhi shortly. And India’s Sri Lanka policy is likely to undergo some change at least in form (if not content). So it will be better to watch the situation as it develops rather than speculate about India’s response at this stage.

3. Does India think that Pretoria will succeed where others have failed? 

Answer to this question is in the realm of speculation for reasons given earlier.

South African mediator will be facing a difficult task, if we go by Indian and Norwegian experiences of the past. But unlike them, fortunately South Africa does not have to deal with either Prabhakaran or the LTTE. It has to deal with the TNA, which despite its periodic fulminations, has enough moderate elements who want the reconciliation process to succeed. The same applies to Sri Lanka, though President Rajapaksa seems to have been unduly influenced by the post war triumphalism that is preventing the adoption of a pragmatic approach. He will have to rethink his approach.

Both the government and the TNA will have to move from their frozen mindsets and be prepared to move forward for reconciliation. This is where South Africa is likely to encounter major problems. Apart from this, there are structural issues connected with the reconciliation process.

For instance, if South Africa suggests a solution based upon its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) model it may not be acceptable to Sri Lanka. Mrs Naveneetham Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who had participated in the TRC in South Africa, in her annual report on Human Rights issued released on February 24, 2014, had explained that it would not be “permissible for any truth mechanism to grant amnesties that prevent the prosecution of individuals who may be criminally responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity or gross violations of human rights, including gender-specific violations.”  Unless Sri Lanka is ready to accept such conditions TRC cannot become a reality.

She has suggested “any such truth commissions should be complemented by comprehensive and coherent transitional justice mechanisms and processes that include prosecution, reparations, vetting and other accountability or reform programmes.”  For achieving productive results, the South Africa mediator will have to cobble up a model that includes some of these major aspects.

Other questions

There are three other questions:

a.       Will Rajapaksa be more sincere in meeting the Tamil aspirations this time as he has failed in the past?

b.       How will India cooperate in this South African initiative because its cooperation is vital for any sort of reconciliation?

c.      Is it a tool of the Sri Lankan president to deflect pressure from the international community after UNHRC vote?

Some of these issues have been partly answered in earlier questions. These questions can be fully and meaningfully answered only after the South African mediator visits Sri Lanka and meets with the stakeholders, and a new Indian government takes charge in New Delhi.

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com   Blog: www.colhariharan.org)

The post Sri Lanka-South African Mediation: Q&A appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By C. S. Kuppuswamy

Introduction

The Kachin Independence Army (KIA) was formed in 1957 to fight for an independent Kachin state.  The political wing of the KIA called the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) was formed in 1960.  The KIA is the second largest armed ethnic group in Myanmar with about 8000 troops.

After a protracted struggle since 1961 the KIA gave up its demand for independence and entered into a ceasefire with the military Government in 1994 with the hope of achieving at  least some limited state autonomy which has also not materialised till date.

The ceasefire collapsed in June 2011 when the Myanmar armed forces attacked the area around Momauk Township (under the control of KIA Brigade-3) presumably to protect the hydro-electric dams under construction in this area with Chinese help.  Since then there have been periodical clashes between the government troops and the KIA, both putting the blame on the other party for the offensives.

Many rounds of talks between the KIO and the Myanmar peace making committee have taken place for a ceasefire.  Though a tacit agreement has been entered into in October 2013, it is not being considered as a ceasefire agreement by the KIA.

The quasi-civilian government that come to power in March 2011 has entered into fresh ceasefire agreements with 16 of the 18 major armed groups between 2011 and 2012.  The KIA and Ta’ang National Liberation Army are the only two major ethnic army groups that have not entered into a ceasefire with the present government.

Meanwhile the government is making a major effort to have a nationwide ceasefire by August 2014 and has formed a 18-member joint committee (with 9 from ethnic groups) which has been entrusted with the task of finalising the draft.

Escalation

Between December 2012 and early January 2013 jet fighters and helicopter gun ships were used by the government forces to bombard the areas held by the Kachins and to provide close support to the ground troops.  The Myanmar army was also reported to have used 105 mm howitzers and 120 mm mortars.  The KIA lost some of its strategic strongholds near Lajayang and Laiza (KIA HQ).

During this war two army helicopters and possibly one aircraft were shot down by the KIA according to a recent report of IHS Jane’s Defence.  “According to statistics on pro-government military blog sites, between June 2011 and the beginning of the Laiza campaign in mid-December 2012, at least 5,000 Tatmadaw troops died in Kachin state. The Laiza campaign and smaller operations since then will have added several hundred fatalities to that toll,” the magazine said” (The Irrawaddy- March 24, 2014).

Recent Clashes

The article “Why conflict continues in Kachin State” published by the Eleven Media Group (21 April 2014) gives full details of the recent clashes.

• On April 4 a major who had strayed into the KIA controlled territory was shot dead.  After the major was killed, the Myanmar Army announced that it was launching operation to gain effective control of the Manweinggyi-Kaunghmuyan route. The reason was to preserve the state resources and to protect the livelihood of villagers in those areas.
• Fighting erupted again in Kachin State between September 2013 to March 2014.  The ministry of Defence said in an announcement in April 19 that the army was taking action against timber smugglers on routes between Mansi-Moemauk, Simbo-Bhamo and Simbo-Manpi.
• On April 10 Myanmar Army troops from Military Operation Command 16, Division 88 conducted multiple attacks against KIA 3rd Brigade regiments. Clashes also occurred in Nantknan in northern Shan State where KIA 4th Brigade, 9th Regiment is situated.
• On April 12, government forces seized Bankhan border gate between Manwainggyi and Nanttaung where KIA bases are located.
• After the clashes, government forces have gained control of the Mansi- Pankham – Manwainggyi route including one of the China-Myanmar border gates.
• On April 16 Monghsat Kaung Camp which is one of the main camps for KIA Brigade No 4, Regiment No 1 was captured.
•  As a result (of the recent clashes) the army is now in control of the Bhamo-Moemauk-Seinlon-Lwejal route.

Myanmar Armed Forces

Ye Htut, the presidential spokesman while talking to The Irrawaddy (22 April, 2014) on the fighting in Kachin areas said “The Tatmadaw only fights to defend itself, and they have been instructed not to attack first. It is important to stop the secret shooting of our troops, which was responsible for the killing of one of our majors.”  He also accused the KIA of violating the ceasefire agreement during the recent surge in fighting, which has left 22 soldiers dead and 5000 people displaced.

• Despite professing that the military is involved only in defensive operations, the strategy adopted by the Tatmadaw seems to be on the following lines:
• Take control of all main lines of communications near the rebel held areas for moving of men and material to the forward posts without interruption from the rebels.
• Take control and strengthening of strategic posts close to rebel held areas to monitor the rebel movements, to surround them and to prevent them from enlarging the areas under their control.
•  Keep the war alive with sporadic clashes and thereby displacing the civil population which is already disenchanted with the KIA in not arriving at an amicable settlement with the Government.
• Break the will of the KIA to fight as it is the only major group resisting to sign the ceasefire as well as to weaken them considerably before agreeing for negotiations under the terms dictated by the military.

The KIA/KIO

The KIA/KIO wants a commitment from the government for a political dialogue before ceasefire while the government wants the ceasefire as a precondition for political dialogue without even indicating a time frame or framework for such a dialogue.

The KIA has also refuted the allegations that it has initiated offensive actions or involved in killing of army personnel by ambushes or by attacks.  The KIA has said that mostly it has been in retaliation for Tatmadaw’s actions.

The army has also taken the pretext of getting engaged in clashes with the KIA while they are raiding illegal loggers.  KIA has denied giving protection to illegal loggers. General Gun Maw of the KIA clarified in an interview that “there are people who benefit from this trade in the KIA and the government”.

The KIA is also under pressure from China to agree to a ceasefire, as it is more interested in stability on its border, border trade and its economic interests in Myanmar. Besides the army offensives in the Kachin area results in displaced persons moving into its territory.

The KIA’s keenness in signing a nationwide ceasefire is evidenced by the fact it has hosted the meeting of 17 armed ethnic groups at Laiza (The KIO HQ) from 30 October to 02 November 2013.  The KIA is also a member of the Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team created at this meeting for further talks with the Government.

Gen Gun Maw, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the KIA visited USA in the third week of April 2014 seeking US support for the peace process.  In an interview to Reuters in Washington he said “At present, we are still asking the US to be involved. Whether they will be, we don’t know yet.”

News Analysis

The Tatmadaw could have very well launched a major offensive against the Kachins but for two restraining factors:

• It will jeopardise the ongoing peace process
• As some strongholds of the Kachins are in close proximity to the Chinese border, the effects of such an offensive will spill over to Chinese territory as it happened during the offensive in December 2012 – January 2013.

The Tatmadaw’s support for and involvement in the peace process indicates that it wants to ensure its interests are looked after and its predominance (if not supremacy) is maintained.

With the nation’s past history of failed ceasefires, the distrust of the KIA/KIO for the Bamar – predominant government machinery is understandable.

The government would not like US to be involved in the peace process (as suggested by KIA) as it may entail in China as well as some other nations getting involved in this process.

The distrust of the ethnic groups compounded with the aggressive posture of the armed forces is likely to further delay the peace process.

The KIA may be constrained to come to an amicable settlement with all its apprehensions as it is losing time and also undergoing a process of attrition with these regular offensives of the government forces.

The post Myanmar: War With Kachins Continues Amidst Talks Of Nationwide Ceasefire – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

A month ago, one of the water experts in Pakistan warned that the “most dreaded water scarcity ever” has at last hit the country. The warning came not too soon and the surprise if any is that the warning has come too late.

Unlike India, Pakistan is solely dependent on the Indus Water system and instead of meeting the water shortage, all that the Pakistan leaders at all scientific and political levels were doing was to do “India Bashing” as if India is responsible for the acute water shortage.

Increasing urbanisation, climate change, population exploration, indiscriminate usage of ground water particularly in Punjab and wastage of water in agricultural operations have all contributed to the shortage of water. Instead, India is being blamed day in and out for all the ills relating to water scarcity in Pakistan.

Even one simple fact that Pakistan which can store up to 40 percent of its water for leaner days has built in capacity of storing only 7 percent of water so far, that shows its lackadaisical approach towards water problems has been ignored and yet India is being described as the villain in stealing the waters of the three western rivers of the Indus under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960!

The Federal Planning Development and Reforms Minister Ahsan Iqbal said on 20th March this year that Pakistan was not getting 10 million acres feet of water, its due share due to water shortage by India.

Surely the Minister must have been aware of the division of waters of the Indus River System under the Indus Water Treaty f 1960, envisages the division of the system with the three western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab going fully to Pakistan with the three eastern rivers- the Sutlej, Ravi and Beas going over to India for full utilization. For the western rivers India is allowed to construct run of the river projects for power generation and a limited quantity for agricultural and other purposes. No where in the Pakistan press is there any mention that India is not fully utilizing the western waters allowed to be used for agricultural purposes and used downstream by the agriculturists of Pakistan and instead there is an unanimous uproar that India is “stealing the waters.”

The Indus water treaty which has withstood the tests of times, in times of war and near war never envisaged any division of scarcity or any generous “give and take” of waters at times of crisis between the two countries. It is not therefore clear how the Pakistan Minister could come to the conclusion that Pakistan is entitled to 10 million acres of water from India. It is not like the water pacts in other river systems where the waters are equitably shared between the riparian countries both during the surplus and lean seasons. The Indus water treaty is unique and given the relationship between the two countries then and even now there could have been no better division of the river waters between the two countries India and Pakistan. Hence any call to revise the treaty as is heard sometimes now would only create more complications and difficulties in managing and utilising the waters of the system between the two countries.

The Minister’s statement mentioned in the beginning of this paper was made in a “Water Summit 2014″ convened by the Ministry of Planning, Development and Reforms of Pakistan in collaboration with the Ministry of Water, Ministry of Inter provincial coordination and Minister of National Food security and research for formulating the country’s first National Water Policy.

It is good that Pakistan has finally woken up to the serious water crisis that was looming large in the last few years. The Minister gave some interesting statistics to highlight the impending crisis. He referred to Pakistan having 5650 cubic metre per person in 1947 and now reduced to 964 cubic metres per person now. Pakistan’s production per unit of water is said to be one of the lowest in the world!

Perhaps the most important and doable statement he made during the meeting was that the forum that was convened should find ways to make water “an instrument of cooperation instead of one of contention between India and Pakistan.”

I had in my earlier papers always suggested that the Indus Water Treaty should be implemented both in letter and spirit and that any differences or call it disputes should be settled between the two countries bilaterally. This spirit of cooperation has been missing all along. The Indian side has the perception that Pakistan’s objections on the projects constructed in India on the western rivers in accordance with the treaty have been mainly to delay the projects and nothing else.

All along, Pakistan has been approaching the Treaty at the technical level with implementation to the letter and not the spirit of the treaty. This has only pushed Pakistan into greater scarcity than was envisaged. Pakistan went for a neutral referee in the case of Baglihar Project and to the ICJ in the case of Kishenganga Project and lost both the cases. Pakistan will be ill advised to go for a Review in the ICJ over the Kishenganga project.

In going through the various articles in Pakistan media on the water crisis, the general opinion appears to veer around the view that the Indus Water Treaty should be seen and implemented in both “letter and spirit.” This approach should be welcome.

Recently, Dr. Murtaza Mughal, President of PEW( Pakistan Economy Watch) made a strident observation that the “issue of water aggression (of India!) cannot be resolved through enhanced trade or negotiations.” Perhaps this is also in line with Pakistan now dragging its feet on giving India ‘the most favoured nation’ status in bilateral trade. If this kind of hostile approach is displayed how can Pakistan expect India to follow the spirit of the Indus Treaty and allow more water for Pakistan at times of scarcity? How can the spirit and not the letter of the treaty be acceptable to India when the issue is also being “franchised” to jehadi groups like LET?

The Forum on the “Water Summit” should have considered these points. It is learnt that many foreign representatives were present in the meeting though none from India appears to have been invited!

There is no alternative to the Indus Water Treaty and one wishes that both sides look at the treaty both in “letter and spirit”.

The post Pakistan’s Water Woes And India Bashing – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

United States President Obama commenced his four-nation visit to the Asia Pacific region by his first State Visit to Japan which commenced on April 23, 2014 and will be followed by visits to South Korea, Philippines and Malaysia and these visits becoming strategically significant in that contextually it is taking place against rising tensions generated by China in East Asia more pointedly.

The US President’s visit is strategically significant in that Japan, South Korea and Philippines enjoy bilateral security alliance relationships and Japan and the Philippines lately have been the victims of adversarial military actions by China endangering regional security and stability. South Korea though not locked in any territorial conflicts with China, however, has major security concerns posed to its security by the nuclear-armed Chinese proxy, namely North Korea.

Malaysia is eagerly looking forward to President Obama’s visit as it was cancelled at short notice last autumn when President Obama was faced with a shut-down of the US Government by Congressional cuts and therefore had to be present in Washington. Malaysia is perceived by the United States as a moderate democratic Islamic country and well worth the US diplomatic effort.

US President’s seven day swing through Asia Pacific can be overall expected to focus on two major thrusts, the first being strategic and the second, economic. Strategically the US President would seek to impress on his hosts that the United States is serious about reinforcing the US Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific despite any budgetary cuts and some Middle East distractions. The Asia Pacific nations hosting the US President’s visit would necessarily like to be reassured by the US President that the United States has firm intentions to stay embedded in East Asia and Asia Pacific and would be looking forward to obtain some strong and meaningful guarantees from the United States.

Economically, it is the United States that would be seeking to motivate his host countries to actively join the US-sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is being viewed as an economic grouping to forestall China’s unchallenged economic supremacy in the region. In a certain sense it could also be termed as aimed at economic containment of China.

Japan logically was the first stop of President Obama as a major nation of not only East Asia but also of Asia Pacific. In fact along with India it is a contending power with China. Unlike China it is a benign Asian power and a responsible stakeholder in Asian security and stability. Japan has been a longstanding and reliable military ally of the United States.

Japan today under the dynamic and assertive leadership of Prime Minister Abe is intent on striking a self-reliant defence posture and possibly also likely to amend the war-renouncing Peace Constitution imposed by the United States in 1951. Japan has held its own in the face of Chinese provocations and military brinkmanship over the East China Sea Senkaku Islands held by Japan. The United States is worried that in the climate of military brinkmanship resorted to by Chia against Japan even a small incident could ignite armed hostilities.

In such a resultant situation the United States would be placed on the horns of a strategic dilemma centring on Japan and China. Japan is a valuable strategic ally which the United States would loathe to lose. China on the other hand is a nation with which the United States for multiple reasons would like to craft a strategically accommodative relationship despite its Congagement China Strategy. It is a ‘lose-lose’ relationship either way for the United States whichever side the United States takes and therefore the biggest strategic challenge for the United States in the Asia Pacific.

It needs to be recalled that the United States very reluctantly conceded the Japanese interpretation that any Chinese aggression in the Senkaku Islands falls within the ambit of the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty and that the United States is obliged to come to Japan’s assistance.

While a lot of ‘alliance rhetoric’ will emerge in Tokyo during the American President’s visit the success of the US President’s visit to Japan would heavily depend on how the United States can wriggle out or predominate its strong ally relationship with Japan over its China Hedging Strategy.

South Korea would also pose a strong challenge to the US President over its strategic and security concerns arising from North Korea’s nuclear and missiles threat. Here again China enters into the US strategic calculus as the US predicament is that over the years China despite US pressures to rein-in its nuclear armed protégé and regional spoiler state, China has not responded positively. Reinforcing and fine-tuning the existing US Forces command structures in South Korea is said to figure in the US President’s discussions while in Seoul.

Likewise Japan, the Philippines also offers a major strategic challenge for the United States in terms of its relationship with China. The Philippines has been subjected to armed aggression by China on Philippines ownership of islands in the Spratly’s in the South China Sea. The Philippines also refused to cow down in face of Chinese brinkmanship and presumably much to the chagrin of the United States has referred its dispute with China to the concerned UN Arbitration Council. Once again, the United States was forced to admit that Chinese aggression in the South China Sea conflicts would render United States to render military assistance to the Philippines.

The Philippines once again has indicated after two decades that it is ready to host US military presence at the famous Subic Bay Naval base and other bases in the Philippines. The United States has come out with lukewarm responses impelled by US fears that it would antagonise China. The United States is however involved in an incremental capacity-building of Philippines naval capabilities for its roes in repelling Chines aggression in the South China Sea.

President Obama’s stop-over in Malaysia emerges as the least challenging as even though Malaysia is involved in sovereignty disputes with China over its South China Sea possessions, the Chinese have been careful in not to indulge in conflict escalation with Malaysia. The visit to Malaysia has more diplomatic and economic overtones since no US President has visited Malaysia for decades. The last visit was by President Lyndon Johnson.

China will be keenly watching and scrutinising every detail of President Obama’s visit to Asia Pacific nations as the strategic nuances that emerge and spill out would greatly determine the future course of China’s Grand Strategy in the Asia Pacific and so also the future course of US-China relations.

As President Obama traverses through this region for the next seven days, the United States cannot be oblivious to the Russian President’s strategic forays and diplomatic moves in the Asia Pacific in terms of the declaration in 2012 of Russia’s Strategic Pivot to the Asia Pacific. The Russian openings to Japan, South Korea and even Malaysia notwithstanding its so-called strategic nexus with China can hardly be overlooked by the United States.

The United States in Asia Pacific today faces a major strategically challenging template where the United States has no longer an unassailable strategic predominance in the Asia Pacific. The United States predominance in Asia Pacific is under challenge from a strategically wayward China and Russia intent on re-emerging as an independent power centre.

In such a security environment the United States can no longer take its allies for granted and the United State will have to walk the extra mile that there are no ambiguities when it comes to United States honouring its security commitments to its traditional allies under threat from a militarily adventurist China with a marked propensity to settle its territorial dispute with its neighbours by use of military force and political coercion. That will be the biggest strategic challenge for the US President as he swings through the Asia Pacific in the coming seven days.

Is this reality that prompted the US President not to club his Asia Pacific tour with a China- visit added to his itinerary and thereby signalling appropriately China and America’s traditional allies in the region?

The post Obama Visits Asia Pacific April 2014: Challenges – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Kerri Lenartowick

Parishes throughout the city of Rome were filled the evening of April 26 with pilgrims spending the night in prayer in anticipation of the next day’s canonization of Popes John Paul II and John XXIII.

More than a dozen churches were open for adoration, Mass, confession, and private prayer, as Catholics from around the world joined locals in the candle-lit parishes, with backpacks and flags by their sides.

One Italian pilgrim, Massimo, attended a vigil with fellow Christians at the church of San Marco in the center of Rome.

“If we are brothers and sisters in Jesus, well, people have the right to see that we love each other. And our mutual love has to be something real, something that they can touch in order to believe,” he told CNA.

He said that he hopes “to share with everybody the experience” of the canonizations, which “has been (a) very nice, very strong experience because they (John Paul II and John XXIII) gave us so much and we, all of us, really can share together, and some beautiful witnesses from them.”

Richard Marsden, a seminarian from England, said that the Popes’ examples of sanctity were an inspiration for his own journey of faith.

“I didn’t meet John Paul II – obviously I saw him on TV and grew up with him as the Pope. It’s amazing to be able to witness somebody become a saint in front of your eyes, because every Christian person is called to be a saint. And to have these examples – like John Paul II, like John XXIII – to try and emulate is a fantastic thing and a great boost to the spiritual life.”

In Piazza Navona, two pilgrim brothers walked across the piazza waving a huge Mexican flag as Polish pilgrims gathered outside the Church of St. Agnes singing hymns. The excitement was evident.

“You see a lot of people from all over the world – it’s just amazing – the other flags from other countries, and you see all the people united in one place,” said Juan Pablo enthusiastically.

His brother, Jesus, who studies and works in Guadalajara City, added, “It’s going to be a huge event. I think that it’s something very important because it’s going to be a saint that we’ve met. I actually met (John Paul II) at the canonization of St. Jose Maria (Escriva).”

Although Juan Pablo never met John Paul II, his mother did – 24 years ago when she was pregnant with her son. “The Pope, gave her a blessing, and that’s why my name is Juan Pablo, John Paul,” he explained.

Pilgrims said the influence and example of John Paul II and John XXIII remain alive in their hearts.

One Polish woman noted John Paul II’s “example of sanctity: human sanctity, simple sanctity… he was the Pope of my whole childhood, so he is an example for me,” she explained.

Giorgio, an Italian man who travelled to Rome from Turin, spoke of John XXIII’s “great courage. He left the Vatican walls and met with people. One rarely sees a Pope like that.”

His fellow Italian Massimo said that the influence of the two Popes is in “what they did and what they lived.”

“It is something that we already have in our hearts, but they gave us a big hand to take it out from our inner selves.”

“What we have to do is to live the mutual love and to give witnesses of this, that is basically the secret of the Trinity, you know, the mutual love. And everybody has the right to share and to live this. Otherwise we are a disaster,” he noted.

“And Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, they showed us how to do it. With young people, but basically with everybody. They made the road, the direction. Now it’s up to us.”

The post Pilgrims Fill Roman Churches In Vigils Before Canonizations appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Saudi Arabi Health Ministry announced on Saturday seven new deaths from the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, taking the country’s death toll to 94.

A statement said that 24 new cases of MERS were detected in the Kingdom, bringing the total to 323 since the virus first emerged there in September 2012.

Among the five who died were two elderly Palestinians and a Bangladeshi woman in her 40s, the statement said. The two other victims were Saudis.

Meanwhile, the ministry has declared three medical centers in Riyadh, Jeddah and the Eastern Province as specialist centers for the MERS treatment, said Acting Health Minister Adel Fakeih in a statement on Saturday.

The King Abdullah Medical Complex in Jeddah, with its advanced medical facilities, will be a major hub for dealing with the coronavirus.

Prince Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Hospital in Riyadh and the Dammam Medical Complex will also be used for this purpose, Fakeih said.

“The three centers can accommodate 146 patients in their ICUs in total isolation from other patients and are equipped with the most modern machinery and laboratories,” said the minister. “They also have excellent outpatient clinics.”

Other emergency steps planned by the ministry to contain the threat of the killer disease include preventive and curative measures, the minister said.

“The ministry is studying all other options to fight this threat. More specialist centers for MERS treatment will be announced later,” he added.

In another development, Egypt has discovered its first MERS case in an Egyptian citizen who had recently returned from Saudi Arabia.

The patient, 27, is being treated for pneumonia at a Cairo hospital and is in a stable condition, the Egyptian Ministry of Health said.
The man, who is from the Nile Delta, was living in Riyadh, the ministry said.

A spokesman for the WHO in Geneva said on Friday it was “concerned” about the rising MERS numbers in Saudi Arabia and called for a speedy scientific breakthrough about the virus and its route of infection.

The post Saudi Arabia: MERS Claims 94th Victim appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

The absence of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov from the Middle East can only signal one thing. Russia is trying to put off the flames at its borders that it forgot to ignite fire in Syria. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the battle for Ukraine is the most important one where effort, time and money are at utmost need. Syria, in Russia’s perspective, is a small battle for Russia in land so far away.

Until today, we don’t know why Russians played such a negative or rather destructive role during the three years of this ugly war. Assad wasn’t a real ally for Moscow and Syria wasn’t a strategic country to Russia. Even the marine port of Tartus was just a place for the Russian battleships easily replaced by Greece. The opponents of the Syrian regimes were not at odds with Russia, either.

From the Kremlin, Putin hoped the Gulf states would not push for a decline in oil prices, in a surprising statement. The Gulf, definitely, is not aiming to intervene in the oil market or lower the prices.

However, the region sent an unprecedented wave of hate against Russia. It is, after all, responsible for the massacre in Syria. In the nations’ mind, this kind of legacy is not easily forgotten.

The Russian government supported Assad militantly and economically, and vetoed any resolution that aimed at highlighting its crimes in the Security Council. The Russian propaganda machine reiterated its claims that it stands against the terrorist groups fighting in Syria. However, the truth is not hidden. Nations know that the Syrian regime insinuated these groups to terrorize the Syrian people and scare the West. Not only that, the West offered Russia to join hands in fighting Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, especially those coming from the Russian surroundings, to ensure that the Free Army is not related to these terrorist groups.

Anyways, Syria has become a marginal issue to the Russians. This is why we don’t see Lavrov in the region anymore. Ukraine was lost to the West, i.e. Europe, in a battle than can take up years using militant, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, and media means.

The question remains, will the Russian absence benefit the Syrian cause? Maybe but not now. The Iranian side is the most involved party in the Syrian war and not Assad’s regime, but Iran will be definitely get tired due to Russian absence. The Iranian decision to raise fuel prices for the first time in decades is a clear sign that Iran is weakened by this burden. It also seems that the decreased sanctions on Iran weren’t helpful to Iran. The Iranian suffering stemmed mostly from its involvement in costly war in Syria.

This will be reflected on the Iranian economy. Lifting the governmental support on fuel in Iran will only add to its problems. The formal propaganda that hoped to charge the people with feelings of enthusiasm and nationalism didn’t work in convincing Iranians of the importance of fighting in Syria. People, still attack the Iranian intervention, and refuse to believe that the protection of Assad’s regime is a religious duty, a matter of a national necessity and an attempt to stop the great conspiracy against Iran. The Russian exit will increase the burden on Iran and on Assad subsequently. The final bullet Iran can shoot is at the opposition to prevent any potential of alternatives for Assad. This is a game Iran perfected in Lebanon and is feared to succeed in Syria.

Email: Alrashed.arabnews@gmail.com

The post Absence Of Russia From Syria And Its Impact – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Finian Cunningham

Workers in Western countries are now paid so badly that businesses are reportedly finding it profitable to return from China – having relocated to Asia in the first place to exploit cheap labor there.

It is an astounding indictment of how capitalism has created a global race to the bottom of misery for workers – yet the Western corporate news media actively conceal this abomination.

This week a BBC business report sounded almost celebratory about the fact that Britain, the US and other Western countries were now said to be “cost competitive” with China and Brazil. The upshot is that many businesses and companies are now re-setting up in Western countries because of the “competitive” wages of workers, according to the BBC spin.

The competitiveness, said the BBC, stemmed from workers’ wages in the West being “held steady” and because they have “become more productive”.

This is Orwellian language to obscure the conditions of systematic poverty and exploitation that exist for many workers in Western countries – the scale of which is so appalling that companies are finding Western countries more profitable than other destinations that were formerly thought of as providing cheap labor.

Such companies had previously closed down, or as the Orwellian language called it “downsized”, operations in the US, Britain and other Western countries to boost their profits by taking advantage of low wages in China.

But several years with chronic unemployment driving down pay and government policy facilitating wage cuts, workers in the West have now been turned into a cheap labor army. Western governments are also using taxpayer money to give corporate tax breaks to entice them to return – in order to exploit the ordinary worker ever more intensively.

It is estimated that the value in terms of average wages in the US is less than what it was back in the 1960s – a half century ago. This has led to a huge rise in poverty and polarization of wealth into the hands of the tiny social elite. America’s top 400 rich individuals own more wealth than half the population of some 155 million people. A quarter of all American workers are officially classed as subsisting below the poverty line. The real figure may be as high as 50 per cent.

In Britain, for example, the average salary for a company executive is now 120 times that of an average worker, according to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Twenty-five years ago, the difference was 49-fold.

It should be obvious that poverty, social decay and vast inequality are not only systematically linked but that this abominable situation is an indictment of capitalism as a failed economic system.

The astonishing thing is that Western politicians and media live in complete denial of this glaring reality. It is obvious that the capitalism system of private profit for a tiny social minority should be openly condemned and that it is unworkable as a social organizing system, based as it is on massive exploitation of human beings. But when do you ever hear the subject being discussed by public figures in the West? It’s like the proverbial elephant, or perhaps we should say dinosaur, in the room being ignored.

What the Western public needs to do is to force this subject into open conversation. Politicians and corporate media need to be treated with contempt for their denial and misinformation about the most pressing reality of our time – the destruction of societies under capitalism.

Just because the political and media elites do not talk about capitalism does not mean that we should also suppress the issue. Otherwise we are conforming to “group think”.

People should realize that all existing political parties in Western countries – whether Republican or Democrat, Conservative or so-called Labor – are all, like the mainstream media, apologists for capitalism. They benefit from the system and will never acknowledge it, never mind challenge it. The same criticism applies for much of the labor union establishment, whose leadership are also beneficiaries of the system.

The time has come for a genuine socialism in which the economy is organized and planned through public ownership and where production is driven by human needs, not private profit. Historically, capitalism has become redundant as an organizing social system. Not only redundant, capitalism has degenerated into the nemesis of the world, threatening its very survival.

It is destroying human life through relentless exploitation. The system is irrational, iniquitous and unsustainable.

Moreover, the insatiable lust for private profit is also driving geopolitical rivalry that inevitably manifests itself in war. War is not just good for capitalist business; it also distracts the public focus away from the dinosaur in the room.

There seems little doubt that Washington and its Western allies are agitating for war with Russia not out of any legal principle, but simply to avert attention from the class war that is being waged against workers and the majority of people in their own societies.

Despite the effective official censorship on the matter, the Western public needs to start talking en masse about capitalism and its destruction of societies, the natural environment, and international relations to the point where a nuclear war is being recklessly risked.

Alternative media such as Press TV deserve great credit for its freedom of thought by raising this urgently needed public debate on capitalism and the pressing need for its abolishment. It is also partly why the Western public is abandoning their established media in droves and turning on to alternatives like Press TV.

It is absurd, but deeply revealing, how the Western corporate media refuse to hold any views or discussions about capitalism and its abhorrent impact of poverty and warmongering.

As former German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg once said, we face a stark choice between the present barbarism under capitalism or creating a new democratic, viable world under socialism.

A first step would be for the Western public to begin talking and thinking openly about the destructive irrationality of capitalism.
That is what Western politicians and the rich elite, including their media mouthpieces, are most in fear of. They fear that moment when the vast majority of people will start to shout out “the emperor has no clothes!”

The post Poverty And War Condemn Capitalism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Bound by law to be ‘socially responsible’, following the new Companies Act 2013 that makes CSR mandatory, there’s a huge sense of dissent among Corporates and expectedly so. As the Corporate world mostly views the Business of Business being to do Business, social responsibility is perceived as being ‘primarily’ the job of the State.

In keeping with Indo-American Chamber of Commerce’s (IACC) agenda, a day-long Conference titled ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: The New Business Imperative’ was held earlier last week at the Taj Mahal Palace and Towers in Mumbai.

The themes that the conference highlighted included ‘Decoding the new CSR Imperative,’ ‘The CSR Mandate: A step in the right direction for corporate governance’, ‘CSR Challenges and Opportunities for Ensuring Inclusive Growth in India’ and others.

The highlight of the conference was undoubtedly Director General and CEO, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs, Dr Bhaskar Chatterjee’s speech wherein the management practitioner spoke at length on how, as Secretary to the Government of India, he prepared and wrote the first comprehensive guidelines on CSR for the public sector. The theorist was best equipped to explain the nuances of Section 135 of the new Companies Act 2013 and the corresponding effect of the CSR Rules.

In what seems like an attempt to soften the blow of the new law, there is a provision under Section 135 (v) that reads: Provided further that if the company fails to spend such amount, the Board shall, in its report made under clause (o) of sub-section (3) of section 134, specify the reasons for not spending the amount. Dr Bhaskar drew the attention of participants, mostly corporates, that an entity which may be unable to spend all of the two per cent of the average net profit as calculated will only need to ‘specify the reasons for not spending the amount.’ And, in that, the law wasn’t as strict as perceived.

But, the inclusion of Section 135 and the Rules are a decisive attempt to sensitise, and mandatorily, corporates making profit to part with a portion for social good. That spending on one’s employees does not qualify as CSR does put the brakes on Corporates which have been pooling in their resources towards staff and their relatives.

So, health-related activities or skill-enhancing programmes catering to employees and / or their relatives will not qualify as CSR according to the new law: Which means, Corporates extending these benefits to their workers will not be able to pass it off as CSR, and concurrently fail to get tax relief. It’s only a matter of time before such Corporates begin to ‘cut down on costs’ and ultimately put an end to such activities to the chagrin of their employees.
A lot of Corporates tend to draw mileage out of worker-benefit endeavours to draw in manpower and elicit a favourable response from job seekers. With such activities failing to make the CSR mark, Corporates will be left with little option but to pull back the employee benefits. Now, that translates into withdrawing health, social and travel benefits to employees are expected to be left sullen.

On the face of it, Corporates have mostly been disgruntled with the new scheme of things. “It’s almost like a communist taxation pattern,” quipped a Director attending the IACC Conference. “Why should Corporates be forced to do something that the State ought to? It isn’t our job. We anyway do our bit for society, all the time. Why do we need a law for this,” he said, capturing the mood of Corporates across the nation.

But then, if it’s left to the discretion of Corporates, nothing will be done for social good. After all, the Corporate world does feel that the Business of Business is to do Business.

The post Business Of Business Isn’t ‘Just’ To Do Business – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Vague provisions of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) joint security agreement raise concerns. Member countries could use the agreement to suppress free expression and undermine privacy rights of citizens and residents.

Five of the six GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman – have ratified the November 2012 agreement. The Kuwaiti parliament is debating its ratification, though some members have expressed strong objections. Kuwait should not ratify the agreement in its current form, Human Rights Watch said.

“The security agreement gives gulf governments another legal pretext to stamp out dissent,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Citizens and residents of the gulf should note that their governments have agreed to share personal information at the whim of an interior minister.”

The agreement’s 20 provisions include a vaguely worded article that would suppress “interference in the domestic affairs” of other GCC countries, which could be used to criminalize criticism of gulf countries or rulers. Another provision provides for sharing citizens’ and residents’ personal data at the discretion of Interior Ministry officials.

The agreement is divided into several sections that detail security cooperation, regulation of borders, cooperation in rescue operations, and extradition obligations. Some provisions appear to allow authorities to infringe on free expression, Human Rights Watch said. For example, article 3 stipulates: “Each state party should take legal measures on any act considered a crime under its existing legislation when its citizens or residents interfere in the domestic affairs of any other state parties.”

The agreement does not define further what behavior may constitute “interfering in domestic affairs of other state parties.” Since 2011, gulf countries have investigated and prosecuted their citizens for criticizing other GCC states or their rulers. A Kuwaiti appeals court, for example, on October 28, 2013 upheld a 10-year prison sentence against a local blogger for comments on Twitter that the court determined insulted individuals including the kings of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s terrorism court on June 24, 2013 convicted seven government critics and sentenced them to prison for allegedly inciting protests and harming public order after they posted commentary on Facebook, and four of the seven faced the additional charge of “supporting those who are called ‘revolutionaries of Bahrain’ and calling for solidarity with them and challenging the [GCC] Peninsula Shield forces stationed there.”

The agreement calls on GCC countries to “extradite persons in their territory who have been charged or convicted by competent authorities in any state party.” Each of the GCC countries has prosecuted people solely for exercising their rights to free expression, association, and peaceful assembly. This agreement could extend the reach of those countries into the other member countries.

Following the agreement’s adoption during the GCC Summit in Manama in December 2012, the GCC secretary-general, Abdullatif Al-Zayani, confirmed that the agreement is intended to curb domestic dissent. He said: “The security pact will empower each GCC country to take legal action, based on its own legislation, against citizens or residents or organized groups that are linked to crime, terrorism, or dissension…”

Other articles stipulate that governments must share private information about citizens and residents. Article 4, for instance, states, “Each state party shall cooperate by providing other parties on demand with information and personal data about citizens or residents of the requesting state, in the realm of the remit of interior ministries.” The articles make no reference to whether a country must show evidence of criminal activity or provide a legal basis for sharing citizens’ or residents’ personal information. The agreement does not indicate that a legal process or court order would be required, nor does it impose any meaningful safeguards to protect the right to privacy or avoid abuses of power, apparently leaving implementation solely to the discretion of the interior ministers of GCC countries.

Under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.” ICCPR General Comment 16 further defines privacy rights, stating that “competent public authorities should only be able to call for such information relating to an individual’s private life the knowledge of which is essential in the interests of society as understood under the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that States should indicate in their reports the laws and regulations that govern authorized interferences with private life.”

The UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression has stated further that article 17 requires any interference with privacy, including government access to personal data, to be necessary for a legitimate aim, proportionate, and prescribed by law, meeting a standard of clarity and precision so that individuals can foresee the article’s application.

Among GCC countries, only Kuwait and Bahrain have ratified the ICCPR, but its provisions constitute an authoritative source and guideline reflecting international best practice. The security pact’s obligation for GCC countries to share private information about private citizens and residents without stating a legal basis, without a defined legal process to safeguard the right to privacy, and under the unchecked discretion of interior ministers appears to constitute “arbitrary interference” by authorities into the privacy rights or gulf citizens and residents, Human Rights Watch said.

Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which all GCC countries have ratified, stipulates that, “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with regard to his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” Article 32 guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to impart news to others by any means.

The agreement also contains a provision that provides for “support or aid on request to any state party … to counter security unrest and disasters” (article 10). The article appears to sanction intervention such as the 2011 Peninsula Shield operation in Bahrain, during which GCC troops bolstered Bahraini forces in suppressing peaceful pro-reform protests.

According to its ratification stipulation, the agreement went into force on December 27, 2013, 30 days after the fourth country, Bahrain, ratified the agreement. By January 14, 2014, five of the six GCC states had ratified the agreement. On April 3, the Kuwaiti parliament’s foreign affairs committee rejected the agreement, as three of the five members contended that it violates Kuwait’s constitution. Kuwaiti authorities, however, are pushing parliament to ratify the agreement later this year.

“Kuwait’s government should heed the concerns of the members of parliament, drop efforts to ratify the security agreement in its current form, and insist that any future GCC agreement clearly safeguard the constitutional and human rights of GCC residents,” Stork said.

The post GCC: Joint Security Agreement Imperils Rights appeared first on Eurasia Review.