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

The Watch On The Jordan – OpEd

0
0

THE ARAB world is in turmoil. Syria and Iraq are breaking apart, the thousand-year old conflict between Muslim Sunnis and Muslim Shiites is reaching a new climax. A historic drama is unfolding around us.

And what is the reaction of our government?

Binyamin Netanyahu put it succinctly: “We must defend Israel on the Jordan River, before they reach Tel Aviv.”

Simple, concise, idiotic.

DEFEND ISRAEL against whom? Against ISIS, of course.

ISIS is the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham – a new force in the Arab world. Sham is Greater Syria – the traditional Arab name for the territory that comprises the present countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Israel. Together with Iraq, it forms what historians call the Fertile Crescent, the green region around the top of the desolate Arab desert.

For most of history, the Fertile Crescent was one country, part of successive empires. Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Ottomans and many others kept them united, until two foreign gentlemen, Sir Mark Sykes and M. Francois Georges- Picot, set about cutting them up according to their own imperial interests. This happened during World War I, which was set in motion by an assassination that happened 100 years ago last week.

With sublime disregard for the peoples, ethnic origins and religious identities, Sykes and Picot created national states where no nations existed. They and their successors, notably Gertrude Bell, T.E. Lawrence and Winston Churchill, put together three quite different communities and created “Iraq”, importing a foreign king from Mecca.

“Syria” was allotted to the French. An imperial commissioner took a map and a pencil and drew a border in the middle of the desert between Damascus and Baghdad. The French then cut Syria up into several small statelets for the Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Maronites etc.. Later they created Greater Lebanon, where they set up a system that installed Maronite Christians on top of the despised Shiites.

The Kurds, a real nation, were cut up into four parts, each of which was allotted to a different country. In Palestine, a Zionist “national home” was planned in the middle of a hostile Arab population. The country beyond the Jordan was cut off to provide a principality for another Emir from Mecca.

This is the world in which we grew up, and which is crumbling now.

WHAT ISIS is trying to do now is simply to eradicate all these borders. In the process, they are laying bare the basic Sunni-Shiite divide. They want to create a unified Sunni-Muslim Caliphate.

They are up against huge entrenched interests, and will probably fail. But they are sowing something much more lasting: an idea that may take hold in the minds of many millions. It may come to fruition in 25, 50 or a hundred years. It may be the wave of the future.

Seeing this picture developing, what should we do?

For me, the answer is quite clear: make peace, quickly, as long as the Arab world is as it is now.

“Peace” means not only peace with the Palestinian people, but with the entire Arab world. The Arab peace initiative – based on the initiative of the Saudi (then) Crown Prince – is still lying on the table. It offers full and unconditional peace with the State of Israel in return for the end of the occupation and the creation of the independent State of Palestine. Hamas has officially agreed to this, provided it is ratified by a Palestinian plebiscite.

It will not be easy. A lot of obstacles will have to be overcome. But it is possible. And it is sheer lunacy not to try.

NOW!

THE RESPONSE of our leadership is the exact opposite.

The historic events and their background interest them “like the skin of the garlic”, as we say in Hebrew.

Their interest is totally focused on the effort to keep hold of the West Bank, which means to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Which means to prevent peace.

The surest way to do so is to hold on to the Jordan valley. No Palestinian negotiator will ever agree to the loss of the Jordan valley – either by direct annexation to Israel or by the “temporary” stationing of Israeli troops in the valley for any length of time.

This would mean not only the loss of 25% of the West Bank (which altogether constitutes 22% of historical Palestine) and its most fertile part but also the cutting-off of the putative Palestinian state from the rest of the world. The State of Palestine would become an enclave within Israel, surrounded on all sides by Israeli-held territory. Much like the South African Bantustans.

When Ehud Barak proposed this at the Camp David conference, the negotiations broke down. The most Palestinians could agree to was the temporary stationing of UN or American troops there.

This week, suddenly, the Jordan Valley demand popped up again. The picture was simple. ISIS is storming south from its Syrian-Iraqi base. It will overrun all of Iraq. From there, it will invade Jordan and pop up on the other side of the Jordan river.

As Netanyahu said: if they are not stopped by the permanent Israeli garrison there, they will appear at the gates of Tel Aviv (except that Tel Aviv has no gates).

Logical? Self-evident? Inescapable? Utter nonsense!

Militarily, ISIS is a negligible force. It has no air force, tanks or artillery. They are opposed by Iran and the US. Compared to them, even the Iraqi army is still a potent force. Next, the Jordanian army is far from a pushover.

Moreover, if ISIS came even near to threatening the Jordanian kingdom, the Israeli army would not wait for them on the Jordan River. They would be requested by the Jordanians to come to the rescue – as happened during the Black September of 1970, when Golda Meir, acting under the orders of Henry Kissinger, warned an approaching Syrian army column that Israel would invade to forestall them. That was enough.

The very idea of Israeli soldiers manning the ramparts in the Jordan valley to defend Israel from ISIS (or anyone else) is sheer idiocy. Even more idiotic than the famous Bar Lev line, which was supposed to stop the Egyptians along the Suez Canal in 1973. It fell within hours. Yet the Bar Lev “line” – reminiscent of the (futile) French Maginot Line and the (futile) German Siegfried Line of World War II – was far away from the center of Israel.

The Israel army has missiles, drones and other weapons that would stop an enemy in his tracks long, long before he could possibly reach the Jordan. The bulk of the Israeli army could move from the sea shore and cross the river within a few hours.

This whole way of thinking shows that our Right politicians – like most of their persuasion around the world, I suspect – still live in the 19th century. If I were in a less charitable mood, I would say in the Middle Ages. They might as well be equipped with bows and arrows.

(The whole thing reminds me, somehow, of a 19th century German army song: “To the Rhine! To the Rhine! To the German Rhine! / Who wants to be the watchman of the River! / Dear Fatherland, don’t worry / Steady and true stands the watch on the Rhine! / The German youngster, pious and strong / Protects the German borderland!”)

BACK TO the future.

The Crusaders established their kingdom in Palestine when the Arab world was splintered. Their great adversary, the Kurd Salah-al-Din al-Ayubi (Saladin), devoted decades to unifying the Arab world around them before vanquishing them on the battlefield of Hittin.

Today, the Arab world seems more splintered than ever. But a new Arab world is taking shape, the contours of which can be conceived only dimly.

Our place is within the new reality, not outside, looking on.

Alas, our leaders are quite unable to see that. They are still living in the world of Sykes and Picot, a world of foreign potentates (now American). For them, the turmoil around us is – well, just turmoil.

The founder of modern Zionism wrote 118 years ago that we shall serve in Palestine as pioneers of European culture and constitute “a wall against Asiatic barbarism.”

Our leaders still live in this imagined reality, re-phrased as “a villa in the jungle”.

So what to do when the predators in the jungle are approaching and roaring? Build higher walls, of course.

What else?

The post The Watch On The Jordan – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Islamic State In Iraq And Syria: Bin Laden Won – OpEd

0
0

Osama Bin Laden’s goal in 9/11 was to suck the US into Afghanistan and Iraq, sparking a regional conflagration that would sweep away the imperial legacy and establish a new caliphate. Over a decade later, this plan is still on track. As he led his jihadists triumphantly into Mosul and declared an emirate on Iraq-Syrian territory, ISIS ‘caliph’ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced that the 1916 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain, France and imperial Russia was at last being dismantled.

The US and Saudis now face an intractable dilemma.

  • For the US, allowing the local al-Qaeda rebels to consolidate their hold on Sunni Iraq and northern Syria means the complete failure of their post-9/11 strategy of creating a new Middle East under their hegemony.
  • For the Saudis, it means risking the very existence of the Saudi state itself.

Sykes-Picot and Saudi Arabia

All of the Middle East states, including Saudi Arabia, were founded as a result of the disintegration of the Ottoman Caliphate at the end of WWI and the Sykes-Picot Agreement that effectively abolished the Ottoman caliphate (Turkey’s new secular leader formalized this in 1924), dividing it into British-French “mandates” and eventually nation states. The prickly Saudis did not suffer the humiliation of direct occupation, but they followed the imperial agenda.

Saudi control of the Arabian peninsula was not what the British had in mind. The British had hoped that the Hashemites could consolidate power over the holy cities Mecca and Medina. They nominally ruled Mecca at the time—Hussein as Emir of Mecca (1908–1917) and his son Abdullah, as deputy for Mecca from 1909–1914 in the Ottoman legislature. In 1917 Hussein was internationally recognized as king of the Kingdom of Hejaz.

Against all odds, the Saud tribe, followers of the ultraconservative Wahhab, defied the British and occupied Mecca in 1924, using an elite corps of jihadists—the Ikhwan—which Saud leader Abdul Aziz organized in 1912 for this purpose (not to be confused with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928). The British had no choice but to accede to this fait accompli, and abandoned their original plan involving the more westernized Hashemites.

However, the Ikhwan jihadists were then betrayed by Abdul Aziz and his new patrons—yes, the very same British—in 1929. The Ikhwan were not happy with Sykes-Picot, which the Saud leader accepted, as it allowed him to establish a tribal monarchy (under imperialist hegemony) to govern the Muslim world.

The Sauds and even more so the Ikhwan were the ISIS of the day—ruthless fighters who slaughter their enemies as ‘unbelievers’, determined to impose their Wahhab-inspired austere Islam on all Muslims. The Sauds were known for their thorough plundering and merciless killings, their raids being “deadlier than traditional Bedouin raids, which usually avoided killing for fear of triggering a blood feud,” according to historian Vernon Egger.

For almost a century now, the Sauds have been able to square the circle, reconciling their role within the empire with their primitive Wahhabism. But they have had their day. Al-Qaeda and now ISIS find their inspiration not with the compromised Saudis but the Ikhwan rebels (followers of Wahhab, but with his militancy restored, and as such dubbed “neo-Wahhabis”).

Just as the first Saudi King Abdul Aziz, supported by the Ikhwan, swept away the more complacent Hashemites and Ottomans/ British, Bin Laden/ ISIS would sweep away the now complacent Saudi royal family, grown fat on its oil wealth, and its US sponsors. Saudi control of the holy cities provides a poor echo of the once powerful Islamic civilization, and the “neo-Wahhabis” know it.

A rump caliphate

The yearning for a revival of the caliphate is predominantly a Sunni one. Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT, Party of Liberation) was founded by Palestinians and Jordanians in 1953, advocating the revival of the Ottoman Caliphate. It was/is supported by Saudi Arabia (though it does not openly operate in Saudi Arabia).

The whole nineteenth century reform thrust in Islam appeared to be Sunni, though reformer Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was himself Shia and his Sunni Egyptian ally Muhammad Abduh was nonsectarian, campaigning for an end to the Sunni-Shia animosity. After the Caliphate was abolished in 1924 and replaced by colonialism, Shia and Sunnis cooperated in the revivalist Khilafat Movement. Iraqi Shia ulama supported the Sunni rebellion against the British, and Persian religious scholars went to the Caliphate Conference in Jerusalem in 1931.

Sunni extremists like ISIS accuse Shia of being American agents, supporting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is hardly fair. Shia parties opposed these invasions but really had no alternative, and accepted the occupations as faits accomplis, naturally attempting to improve their lot under the circumstances. The charge of being agents of imperialism is belied by the fact that Iran is the only outspoken Islamic critic of imperialism and is the subject of unrelenting subversion for its trouble.

However, the imperial strategy of divide and conquer has worked, and Sunni-Shia sectarianism has been consolidated to the extent that to achieve their goal of a new caliphate, ISIS is collaborating with their secular foes of yesteryear, Baathists and former military personnel, who operate as the Iraqi Islamic Army and the 1920 Revolution Brigades.

Such a strategy will achieve at best a truncated caliphate—roughly ISIS’s current territory—surrounded by hostile Sunni and Shia states, which will soon be the scene of further conflict as the ex-Baathists struggle for control. Their tactical alliance with ISIS can’t last. At that point, ISIS will be forced to look to their Saudi foes for support, but this again is not a stable alliance, as the Saudi betrayal of the Ikhwan in the 1920s reminds us.

This caliphate revival, the goal of Bin Laden, of HuT, and stretching back to the Ikhwan in the 1920s and Afghani in the nineteenth century, should have ended with the US invasions following 9/11, which aimed at destroying al-Qaeda and consolidating US hegemony in the region. However, the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be a boon to these “neo-Wahhabis”, and all Obama’s horse and all of his men now look quite helpless.

By backing the Syrian insurgency, the US gave at least free rein (if not actual support) to ISIS, who presumably were only supposed to be spoilers, weaken Assad, possibly split up Syria and Iraq, but certainly not to gain power and keep it. With that now a possibility, the US is panicking, as well it should. So far, the Saudis aren’t panicking, presumably counting on using their oil wealth and anti-Shia sectarianism to let them co-opt leaders of some future Sunni Iraqi-Syrian state.

Perhaps they count on the US to drone ISIS out of existence and replace them with pro-US Sunnis. But this no longer looks like an option either. ISIS types are prepared to die in their jihad, like the Ikhwan insurgents a century ago, and it is unlikely that ISIS will be seduced by either the empire or a bankrupt monarchy.

Acceding to a rump caliphate would be the equivalent of the British making peace in the 1920s with the Ikhwan, an impossibility in terms of empire strategy. Now, as then, Saudi hegemony must be preserved. Now, as then, Saudi collapse would mean an end to imperial control over the vital region.

A new regional alignment

ISIS’s sectarian success is prompting calls for a nonsectarian alliance between governments in Syria, Iraq, Iran and possibly Turkey opposed to this scenario. Turkish support for the insurgency in Syria is already being seen as a mistake, encouraging Kurdish separatism, and Turkey’s Islamists have no truck with ISIS. A proposal by Diako Hosseini of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Institute for Political and International Studies is the establishment of a rapid deployment force by the neighboring countries of Iraq, centered on Iran and Turkey, which would act on the request of the Iraqi government.

What role can the US play here? Not much, as its support is the kiss of death to Iraqis seeking to extricate themselves from a decade of US occupation, and the return of its forces would be a blow to the regional powers, who should be the actors responsible for solving the region’s problems.

Such a regional alliance would stabilize the US-installed regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, though no longer under US hegemony. The rapprochement between Sunni and Shia that it implies would bring Muslims together in a way that ISIS and its sectarian caliphate cannot do. Neither the Saudi Wahhabis nor the ISIS neo-Wahhabis are capable of making this ‘leap of faith’.

A shorter version of this appeared at Middle East Eye

The post Islamic State In Iraq And Syria: Bin Laden Won – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Federalism: A Path Turkey Must Avoid – OpEd

0
0

By Harun Yahya

Turkish people are all set to directly vote for a president for the first time ever. The public will be asked who should head the republic. Preparations for the presidential elections in one month’s time are therefore taking place in an unusually different atmosphere.

Now it is known that the main struggle will be between the opposition parties’ candidate, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, former Secretary-General of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has recently announced his candidacy. Both are strong candidates for Turkey; they are strong because Turkey always leans to the right side of the political spectrum. The nomination of a right-wing candidate such as Ihsanoglu from a left-leaning opposition party clearly indicates the political preferences of the Turkish people.

As the election draws near, varying opinions regarding the shift in the Turkish political system continue to surface. Will Turkey move to a presidential system? This is not the first time the issue has been discussed. This writer believes that presidential system in Turkey will give rise to major problems in the future and is therefore ill advised. The reason may be summarized as follows:

Various countries have presidential systems and almost all have federal mechanisms. Presidential systems can gradually turn into totalitarian regimes with all powers vested in one individual and require regional federations with independent decision-making mechanisms if democracy is to remain sound and healthy. It is, therefore, most likely that the presidential system in Turkey would give rise to federalism as well. This is where the problem arises. As I have said many times here, there is the problem of the communist PKK, long known for its terrorist activities, in the southeast of Turkey. Following the peace process and accompanying cease-fire, the PKK terror organization and its political supporters in Turkey changed their tone and brought up the issue of “democratic autonomy.” This method of winning over the public and administrations by depicting division as harmless and unproblematic is the oldest trick in the book.

Following its official application for European Union membership, Turkey had to adopt the European Constitution and is bound by it. One of the most contentious articles in that constitution for Turkey is the condition imposing local administrations. As per this article, provincial general assemblies and municipalities should be given various powers. Let us remember that a large part of the municipalities in the southeast are under the control of a party supported by the PKK. Municipalities are using their increased powers more along ideological lines than for administrative reasons.

Efforts are being made to make autonomy acceptable to the public; propaganda based on discrimination between Kurd and Turk is being spread and the psychological foundations for division are being laid through education. The idea is that the worthy Kurdish people will be attracted to autonomy while remaining unaware that they are under the influence of a communist structure that will crush them.

Again in the scope of EU laws, Turkey has been implementing a system known as the Development Agencies since 2006. Under this, Turkey is theoretically divided into eight separate regions and the development agencies to be established will have the broader authority to maintain relations with foreign countries. This has been perceived by some pro-PKK politicians as the first stage of a project to divide Turkey into 26 regions and under which the Southeast will eventually break away from Turkey. Grave risks are therefore involved.

The main reason why the presidential system enjoys the backing of PKK supporters and of Öcalan in particular is that it will open the door to federalism. It will not be hard for a Communist Southeast with full powers in local administration under a federated structure to obtain autonomy within the scope of EU laws. The proponents of devolution who are already saying that “democratic autonomy is harmless,” and shamelessly opining that “it would not be a bad thing to have our own flag alongside the Turkish flag,” are planning to set up their own military force under the name of a “self-defense force,” and are even planning to establish their own judicial system. The aim behind all this is to be able to establish a Communist state in the Southeast and to oppress our Kurdish brothers. The fact that these people are talking about a form of “communal” life in the Southeast is important in seeing the terrible nature of the situation.

In the wake of statements by the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq that “we may put independence to a referendum,” the situation in the southeast of Turkey has become more noteworthy. Although we are always in favor of Iraqi territorial integrity, there is no doubt that independence for the Iraqi Kurds is in their own interests. However, the “Great Kurdistan” plan of the last 100 years or so must also not be forgotten; if independence for the Kurds in Iraq is regarded as a beginning, and if an independent state in Turkey is one day supported by the EU and the US, the building of a New North Korea will begin, knowingly or otherwise. In seeking an ally for itself, the US will encounter a Communist state that enjoys support in many regards. Our Kurdish brothers will face terrible oppression. Turkey, which has to remain strong in a region such as the Middle East, will be a divided country weakened by the horrors of Communism. We should never permit such a thing.

Had Turkey been not facing such issues, a federal system would not have posed any threat. But we must not forget that federal systems come about through divided components coming together, as in the case of the United States. Turkey is the last remaining part since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and is a single whole dating back 600 years. It is unthinkable for such a country to be divided into parts in the presence of such dangers. If a federation is desired, the start must come with the unification of a region that has been divided and fragmented over the last 100 years and that means a union that binds Middle Eastern countries together on the basis of brotherhood and love; that is what is really required.

@harun_yahya

The post Federalism: A Path Turkey Must Avoid – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ralph Nader: Two November Chances For Progressives – OpEd

0
0

With the Tea Partiers giving the establishment Republican incumbents much ferment in the primaries (or retirement, as in the case of David Brat defeating powerhouse Congressman Eric Cantor in Virginia), what are progressives doing to their corporate-indentured incumbent Democrats? Not much. There are few electoral challengers or pressures directly pushing progressive redirections for our declining political economy, beset with rising poverty and plutocracy.

Progressive Democrats are almost as addicted to the “least worst” slumber theory of voter abdication as the forlorn liberals dreaming of Hillary and eight more years of corporate Clintonism and its overseas militaristic forays.

The political energy levels between the smaller number of Tea Partiers and the larger number of politically active progressives is stunning. Progressives wallow in a plethora of excuses for not taking on the Democratic Party establishment, pronounced moribund as long as 2001 in a crisp Washington Post opinion article by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

This is not to say that progressives are quiet on the issues. On a daily basis, progressive writers, activists and professors pour out powerful exposés, critiques and suggested reforms of corporate crimes and abuses. They challenge politicians who prostrate themselves before corporate chieftains for campaign cash.

The trouble is that these same vocal citizens do not carry their deep concerns from free speech into the electoral arenas. By not doing so, they consign most of their reforms to a wailing futility. The “wail” is that the Republicans are even worse. The “futility” is that talking on incumbent Democrats who champion crony capitalism and Empire is tilting at windmills.

Well, two authentic progressive candidates are rejecting such destructive despondency, one in the 2nd Congressional District of West Virginia and the other in the 21st Congressional District of New York – both open seats.

Native West Virginian, Ed Rabel, the long-time, award winning war correspondent for CBS television, is running as an Independent for the House of Representatives. Rabel, for thirty-three years, covered raging wars in over 100 countries, including Vietnam, Laos, and South American and African countries. He has come back home to serve his people by challenging abusive corporations and by taking on the politicians who serve their corporate paymasters.

Before he even finished getting the necessary signatures to qualify for the ballot, Rabel registered at ten percent in the first poll.

Articulate as ever, Rabel chastises both the Republican candidate, Alex Mooney and the Democrat Nick Casey, as being “in the pockets of coal, chemical and natural gas corporations,” that have polluted, ravaged and exploited West Virginians and turned their natural resource-endowed state into what is called “a rich state with poor people.”

He emphasizes that coal companies “provide less than 6% of incomes and less than 3% of jobs” in West Virginia.

Rabel has diagnosed the state’s economic, political and environmental ills through vivid descriptions rooted in irrefutable facts wrapped with irresistible rhetoric.

He shatters the myths that have kept the state in corporate servitude, saying: “In fact, the policies that would create sustained economic growth in West Virginia would also help families and improve healthcare and the environment. But, driven by the falsehoods, Republicans and Democrats want to slash spending where it hurts West Virginia most and change tax laws in ways that help West Virginia least.”

He means that taxes should be used for the necessities of the citizenry – education, health, safety and public works. Restoring the federal minimum wage to over $10 per hour (catching up with inflation since 1968) would also reduce the burdens on taxpayer-funded social services, he adds.

In upending the state’s political censorship, Ed Rabel is calling for “a moratorium on mountaintop removal and hydraulic fracturing because of the threats they pose to the people of the state.” (For more specifics about Rabel’s practical and humane agenda see his website at rabelforcongress.com.)

Up in the North Country of New York State is “democracy’s baker,” Green Party candidate Matt Funiciello, whose progressive civic activism and generosity are legion. Having known him for years, I gave him that description.

There are four reasons why Funiciello has shined in his early debates with Republican Elise Stefanik (a veteran staffer for George W. Bush and Congressman Paul Ryan) and Democratic Aaron Woolf, who until now has lived most of the time in Brooklyn.

Reason one is that he is well-read.

Reason two is that he is an independent thinker.

Reason three is that he listens to people and understands their needs for a just society.

Reason four is that he understands that, while baking millions of loaves of varied breads, “man does not live by bread alone.” He has a sparkling, congenial personality, grounded in serious determination to do something in Washington, DC about the downward drift of our country and neglect of its people – who do the daily work and have to pay all the bills.

The 21st Congressional District, which includes the entire giant Adirondack Park, historically has sent both Democratic and Republican candidates to Congress. It is not a one-party-dominated District. It has a tradition of agreeing to public candidate debates, unlike the 2nd District in West Virginia which shuts out third party participation.

So voters, who take notice, will hear Matt Funiciello press for more efficient single-payer universal health care, restored wages, revival of local agricultural production and family farms. He opposes corporate welfare and hydrofracking and has unfurled the banner of progressive taxation, providing more income tax relief for workers by ending tax escapes for the big corporations and the wealthy.

Being a small businessman himself – Funiciello also owns a popular restaurant – he speaks the language of community-owned economies and self-reliance. He also walks the talk, by buying New York State wheat for most of his breads.

“Democracy’s baker” argues for electoral reforms that will give voters more voices and choices on the ballot beyond the dreary clichés and forked tongue bloviating of the two-party tyranny (see mattfunicielloforcongress.org and follow @MFuniciello2014 on Twitter.)

Now, here is the rub. Will active progressives and their media rally behind and work with Ed Rabel and Matt Funiciello and their grassroots campaigns for these open seats in Congress?

Or will they continue their electoral servitude and not start making a difference?

The post Ralph Nader: Two November Chances For Progressives – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Call For Netherlands To Reconsider ICC Witness Deportation

0
0

The Netherlands’ State Secretary of Security and Justice should use his discretion to delay the deportation of three International Criminal Court (ICC) witnesses, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to State Secretary Fred Teeven. On June 27, 2014, the highest Dutch court, the State Council, denied the witnesses’ asylum requests and authorized their return to the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo).

The Dutch government, as a strong supporter of international justice and human rights, should press authorities in Congo to take measures to ensure the witnesses’ due process rights will be fully respected if they are returned there.

“The Dutch State Secretary should pull the brake on the deportation of the three ICC witnesses until he can satisfy himself that any prosecution of the witnesses will be fair and credible, in accordance with international standards,” said Géraldine Mattioli-Zeltner, international justice advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “With a strong risk that the witnesses won’t get a fair trial in Congo, the Dutch government shouldn’t be complicit by sending them back.”

The three men – Floribert Njabu, Sharif Manda, and Pierre-Célestin Mbodina – applied for asylum in the Netherlands in May 2011, when they completed their testimony in a case before the ICC, citing fear for their physical safety and human rights violations if they were returned to Congo. Prior to their transfer to the ICC, all three had been detained for several years in Congo on various charges such as belonging to a rebel movement, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Human Rights Watch emphasized that the Dutch government has strict legal obligations to fully satisfy itself that the three ICC witnesses will not be subject to the death penalty, to torture or denied justice through an unfair trial or arbitrary detention. Human Rights Watch underscored that guarantees given by a government against torture and prohibited ill-treatment are an inadequate safeguard against such treatment and cannot be used to meet a state’s obligations not to send any individual to a place where they face a real risk of torture.

Human Rights Watch also expressed strong concerns that the rights of the three witnesses to due process and a fair trial were at risk of not being upheld in Congo. Further measures should be implemented by the Congolese authorities to ensure a fair trial before the men are returned, Human Rights Watch said.

The post Call For Netherlands To Reconsider ICC Witness Deportation appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Rethinking China’s Monroe Doctrine – Analysis

0
0

It is too early to worry about China’s Monroe Doctrine. Asian countries need to think about how to deal with its new Nixon Doctrine in the near future.

By Kai He and Huiyun Feng

THE “MONROE Doctrine” is gaining popularity in both scholarly and policy discourses on Asian security. Specifically, scholars and pundits are warning that China will adopt its own “Monroe Doctrine” to dominate Asia and “kick America out.” China has simultaneously faced standoffs in the East China Sea and South China Sea, engaged the United States and Russia geopolitically, and showed a tough stand toward Hong Kong.

It seems that Asia will soon be “back to the future” and a new Cold War between China and the United States is looming in the Pacific region. However, the assertion of a Chinese version of the “Monroe Doctrine” is mistaken.

Why is the “Monroe Doctrine” not right for China?

First, China does not have the capabilities to dominate Asia. China’s military spending is still less than one third of the United States’. Although the World Bank predicted that China’s GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) will surpass the United States by the end of this year, the Chinese government itself denied the validity of this forecast, On soft power, despite some praise of the “Chinese model,” China remains far behind in making its cultural and political values welcome around the world.

In a word, China still has a long way to go to catch up with the United States in all dimensions of power. Even if China could finally match American power, China still cannot lead or dominate Asia given the impact of globalization and economic interdependence. No nation can independently address many non-traditional security threats and challenges, such as terrorism and drug trafficking. The United States has learned to lead through collaboration with other nations and institutions. So should China.

Second, China never intended to dominate the region. Chinese President Xi Jinping promoted a “China Dream” for national rejuvenation, not an “Asian Dream”. The reference point for Xi and other Chinese leaders is the “hundred years of humiliation” since the Opium War and not the “tributary system” of the Middle Kingdom. No Chinese leaders want to rebuild the Sino-centric order because China has been socialized into the international community, respecting state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference into internal affairs.

There is no denying that China is becoming stronger with its economic achievement. However, a strong China does not necessary entail aggressiveness and dominance. As seen from history, what China wants is respect and an appropriate status in the international system.

Two possible explanations

If China is not setting up its own Monroe Doctrine, then, why the diplomatic and territorial troubles now?

There are two possible explanations. First, China’s foreign policy is still going through some strategic adjustments. China is searching for a grand strategy to behave like a great power in world politics. With its unprecedented power in modern history, Chinese leaders need to learn how to use, not abuse, the newly accumulated capabilities.

Consequently, there is a learning process or even a learning curve for Chinese policymakers to overcome. China has a complicated political system and the difficulties in coordination within the bureaucratic system may at least partially explain China’s surprising and even unwise decision to take on almost all its maritime challenges at the same time.

It is not easy to be a great power, especially to be a responsible one. The Chinese government needs to reflect on its own foreign policy, thinking about how to strengthen its “peaceful rise” commitment with real actions, instead of mere words.

Secondly, China’s assertiveness may be part of the “bargaining process” between China and the outside world. With growing power, China, by nature, will need to bargain for a new position, a new status, or a new term with the outside world, especially the United States. The current turbulences in China’s bilateral relations with other countries may be a normal “bargaining process” in which both sides at the table intend to test the bottom line of the other.

The United States launched a “pivot to Asia”, later termed “rebalancing”, to show its commitment and test China’s intention in Asia. China tried to set a new status quo in the East China Sea and South China Sea to demonstrate its own resolve in territorial disputes. Understandably both sides at the negotiation table intend to maximize their own interests.

However, all nations also need to remember that the art of negotiation is to find the equilibrium between seemingly incompatible interests, and diplomacy is to avoid wars, not to ignite conflicts.

What should Asian countries do?

Should Asian countries worry about China’s Monroe Doctrine now? It is still too early to do so. What Asian countries need to do is to shape China’s policy choices if possible. Asian countries should not exaggerate the threats associated with China, nor behave accordingly. China needs time to accomplish its strategic adjustments and negotiate a new deal with the outside world. As Joseph Nye Jr. once wisely warned about the self-fulfilling prophecy, “if you treat China as an enemy, it will become one”.

Asian countries should also continue to engage China as before. They should let Chinese leaders know that the international community welcomes a strong and responsible China, not an arrogant Middle Kingdom. They should encourage China to continuously participate in and socialize through multilateral institutions.

ASEAN can play a significant role in embracing China into the rule-based and norm-oriented community. Basically, China can change the world by means of the use of force or transformation through rules. Other countries should encourage China to become a rules-maker in the new regional order, in which it has to be restrained by the rules and norms it has set for others.

Last, but not least, other Asian countries should prepare for a world without a Pax Americana. The US’ reiterated commitments indicate the eroding confidence between the United States and its regional allies. With continuous defense budgetary cuts, the United States will need its Asian allies to share its defense burden in the region.

While China’s Monroe Doctrine may be worrisome in the future, the immediate concern for Asia will be a new version of the “Nixon Doctrine”, through which the United States left its Asian allies to “take care of themselves”. Now, it is time for Asian countries to think about a regional solution for a post-American era.

The writers are Associate Professors of Political Science at Utah State University and currently visiting fellows with the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The post Rethinking China’s Monroe Doctrine – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

ISIS: The Spoils Of The ‘Great Loot’ In The Middle East – OpEd

0
0

By Conn Hallinan

“So far as Syria is concerned, it is France and not Turkey that is the enemy.” – T. E. Lawrence, February 1915.

It was a curious comment by the oddball but unarguably brilliant British agent and scholar, Thomas Edward Lawrence. The time was World War I, and England and France were locked in a death match with the Triple Alliance, of which Ottoman Turkey was a prominent member. But it was nonetheless true, and no less now than then. In the Middle East, to paraphrase William Faulkner, history is not the past; it’s the present.

In his 1915 letter, Lawrence was describing French machinations over Syria, but he could just as well have been commenting on England’s designs in the region, which Allied leaders in World War I came to call “The Great Loot”—the imperial vivisection of the Middle East.

As Iraq tumbles into a yet another civil war, it is important to remember how all this came about, and why adding yet more warfare to the current crisis will perpetuate exactly what the “Great Loot” set out to do: tear an entire region of the world asunder.

Divide and Conquer

There is a scorecard here filled with names, but they are not just George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice—though the latter helped mightily to fuel the latest explosion.

They are names most people have never heard of, like Sixth Baronet of Sledmere Mark Sykes and French diplomat Francois Georges-Picot. In 1915, these two mid-level diplomats created a secret plan to divvy up the Middle East. Almost a century later that imperial map not only defines the region and most of the players, but continues to spin out tragedy after tragedy, like some grotesque, historical Groundhog Day.

In 1915, the imperial powers’ major goal in the Middle East was to smother any expression of Arab nationalism and prevent any unified resistance to the designs of Paris and London. France wanted Greater Syria, Britain control of the land bridges to India. The competition was so intense that even while hundreds of thousands of French and British troops were dying on the Western Front, their secret services were blackguarding one another from Samarra to Medina, maneuvering for position for when the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was the compromise aimed at ending the internecine warfare. France would get Greater Syria (which it would divide to create Lebanon), plus zones of influence in northern Iraq. Britain would get the rest of Iraq and Jordan and establish the Palestine Mandate. All of this, however, had to be kept secret from the locals, whom the British and French incited to rebel against imperial Ottoman rule even as they plotted to impose their own.

The Arabs thought they were fighting for independence, but London and Paris had other designs. Instead of the lands between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and access to the Mediterranean the Arabs had been promised, they would get the sun-blasted deserts of Arabia and the rule of monarchs, who were easy to buy or bully.

However, to run such a vast enterprise through the use of direct force was beyond the power of even London and Paris. So both empires transplanted their strategies of exploiting religion, sect, tribe, and ethnicity—which had worked so well in Indochina, India, Ireland, and Africa—to divide and conquer, adding to it a dash of chaos.

The French put the minority Christians in charge of Lebanon to keep down the majority Sunnis and Shiites. They recruited the minority Alawite Shiites in Syria to head up the army that ruled over the majority Sunnis, while the British installed a Sunni king in Iraq to rule over the country’s majority Shiites. In Palestine the British used Zionism much as they were using Protestantism in Northern Ireland to keep down the native Catholic Irish and keep both communities divided. Communities ended up fighting one another rather than their imperial masters, which, of course, was the whole point of the matter.

Now those demons are on the loose.

Names on the Ledger

There are new players in the Middle East since Sykes and Picot drew up their agreement. Washington and Israel were latecomers, but eventually replaced both imperial powers as the major military forces in the region.

The enemy of the “Great Loot” was secular nationalism, and the United States, France, and Britain have been trying to overthrow, isolate, or co-opt secular regimes in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya since they first appeared. The rationale for the hostility is that secular regimes were run by dictators. Many have been, but they’re arguably no worse than the Wahhabi fanatics in Saudi Arabia or the monsters the Gulf monarchies have nurtured in Syria and northern Iraq.

Why is Syria a dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is not? This past February, the kingdom passed a law equating anything offends “the nation’s reputation or its position”—including dissent, the exposure of corruption, and campaigns for reform—with “terrorism.”

The list of names on the ledger of those who nurture terrorism in the Middle East is long. Yes, it certainly includes the Bush administration, which smashed up one of the most developed countries in the region, dismantled the Iraqi state, and stoked the division between Sunni and Shiites. But also the Clinton administration, whose brutal sanctions impoverished Iraq and eviscerated its middle class. And further back, during the first Gulf War, George H. W. Bush pounded southern Iraq with toxic depleted uranium, inflicting a massive cancer epidemic on places like Basra. It was Jimmy Carter and the CIA who backed Saddam Hussein’s rise to power, because the Ba’athist dictator was particularly efficient at torturing and killing trade unionists and members of the Iraqi left.

Not to mention members of the Gulf Cooperation Council—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Morocco, and Jordan—who fund the Islamic insurgency in Syria. Some of those countries may decry the excesses of the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL), but it was they who stoked the fires in which ISIL was forged.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also on that list. It is through Turkey’s borders that most fighters and supplies pass into Syria. So is the Obama administration, which farmed the insurgency out to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and is now horrified by the creatures that those Wahhabist feudal monarchies produced.

France’s Imperial Grudge

And don’t forget T.E. Lawrence’s French.

Paris has never forgiven the Syrians for tossing them out in 1946, nor for Damascus’ role in the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war that dethroned the French-favored Christian minority who had dominated the country since its formation in 1943.

The French have been enthusiastic supporters of the insurgency in the Syrian civil war and, along with the British, successfully lobbied the European Union to drop its ban on supplying the rebels with military hardware. Paris has also earned favor from Saudi Arabia by trying to derail efforts to find a solution to the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. France is a member of the group of powers known as the P5+1—France, the United States, Russia, Britain, China, and Germany—involved in talks with Tehran.

The Gulf Council praised France’s attempted sabotage, and Paris promptly landed a $6-billion contract to upgrade Saudi Arabia’s air defense system. It is negotiating to sell $8 billion worth of fighter-bombers to the Emirates and almost $10 billion worth to Qatar.

Saudi Arabia recently donated $3 billion in aid to the Lebanese Army on the condition that it is used to buy French weapons and ammunition. It is a somewhat ironic gift, since the major foe of the Lebanese Army lately has been Saudi-supported Wahhabists in the country’s northern city of Tripoli.

And that’s not all. Apparently French President Francois Hollande met with the foreign ministers of Jordan and the United Arab Emirates last September to discuss a plan for Pakistan to train a 50,000-man Sunni army to overthrow the Syrian government and defeat al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist groups.

Members of that army may already be on their way to Europe, much as the mujahedeen from Afghanistan did a generation ago. According to western intelligence services, more than 3,000 European Union citizens have gone to fight in Syria—10 times the number who went to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The gunman who killed four people on May 24 at the Jewish Museum in Brussels was a veteran jihadist from the Syrian civil war.

Sowing Chaos

For now, the Gulf monarchies see themselves as pulling the strings, but they have virtually no control over what they have wrought. Those Wahhabi fanatics in Syria and northern Iraq may do what Osama bin Laden did and target the corruption of the monarchies next.

The Gulf countries are rich but fragile. Youth unemployment in Saudi Arabia is between 30 and 40 percent, and half the country’s 28 million people are under 25 years of age. In other Gulf nations a tiny strata of superrich rule over a huge and exploited foreign workforce. When the monarchies begin to unravel, the current chaos will look like the Pax Romana.

But chaos has always been an ally of imperialism. “The agenda has always been about imposing division and chaos on the Arab world,” wrote long-time peace activist Tom Hayden. “In 1992, Bernard Lewis, a major Middle East expert, wrote that if the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity…the state then disintegrates into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.” And that is just the kind of disintegration that foreign powers have sought to exploit.

Military intervention by the United States and its allies will accelerate the divisions in the Middle East. If the White House is serious about stemming the chaos, it should stop fueling the Syrian civil war, lean on the Gulf monarchies to end their sectarian jihad against Shiites, pressure the Israelis to settle with the Palestinians, and end the campaign to isolate Iran.

And tell the French to butt out.

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com.

The post ISIS: The Spoils Of The ‘Great Loot’ In The Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Egypt: Dictatorship By Demand – Analysis

0
0

By Samuel Tadros

At 4:34 a.m. Cairo time on March 20, 2003, coalition forces led by the United States began their invasion of Iraq. Less than six hours later security lines in Cairo’s Tahrir Square were being overrun by the most unlikely protesters: students of the American University in Cairo. Egyptian opposition parties had called for a protest at one o’clock in Tahrir, but three hours earlier 1,000 students had taken the initiative, surprised security forces, and managed to reach the square. The smell of euphoria was in the air as the students set their gaze on a building a few blocks from the square, that symbolized US hegemony over their country, the fortified US Embassy.

The mass of people did not hesitate as they attacked line after line of security forces trying to break through, their attacks bearing fruit. They reached Omar Makram Mosque and then set foot on Simon Bolivar Square. “Tell Bush, tell Blair . . . Iraq is not Afghanistan,” they shouted. There their attacks fell short; the security forces were better organized, and they could not break their lines no matter how much they tried. Some fell on the sides, their faces covered in blood; they were carried by their comrades. Half the protesters managed to reach the street leading to the Nile Corniche. Bringing traffic to a halt, they broke for freedom and tried to surround the British Embassy. They failed to encircle it, and two hours later they returned and joined their comrades in Simon Bolivar Square. They made a last attack and broke security lines back to Tahrir Square.

Opposition activists had arrived by then. Thousands were now in the square. They would attempt several times to reach the US Embassy but be rebuffed. Circles were forming in the square, graffiti was being drawn on the asphalt, and people were singing. Magda El-Roumi’s famous song “The Street Is Ours” could be heard in the square. Voices chanting, “the street is ours . . . the square is ours . . . tomorrow Egypt will be ours.” That generation of Egyptians had never seen anything like it. Egypt had not seen anything like this since the bread riots of 1977. The next day demonstrators started in Al-Azhar Mosque and took over the square again. Clashes continued throughout the day, and a fire truck used to disperse the crowds was reportedly set on fire. In the following days police arrested numerous activists of all political stripes. What remained of the crowd’s spirit died twenty days later as they saw on TV Iraqis bring down ­Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad. The honor and dignity of a nation stretching from the Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean was lost in the streets of Baghdad.

The gods must have been rolling the dice that day on March 20, 2003. Little did the protesters in Tahrir Square know they were writing the first line in the story of the Egyptian revolution.

***

That Egypt’s revolution has failed is hardly disputable today. The excitement of those magical eighteen days in Tahrir Square and the hopes of a dawn of democracy in Egypt are long gone. Replacing them is widespread despair among Egypt’s revolutionary activists and their international cheerleaders, and who would blame them? The man they sought to topple enjoys his freedom after two years in prison, the old faces of his regime are now back, and the revolutionary activists—those who are not cheering the very military they were chanting against two years earlier—are now among the jailed, the cursed, the emigrant, and the depressed.

It is true some still believe the revolution continues or, more fancifully, the ouster of Mohamed Morsi is but the second wave of the original revolution. Joining the ranks of the delusional is the American Secretary of State John Kerry, who suggested the revolution was “stolen” by the Muslim Brotherhood, with Egypt now apparently set on the right path to democracy. But outside of those few voices—and regardless of whether one believes that Egypt is witnessing a counterrevolution, as the author contends, or a coup, or that no revolution occurred in the first place, as Hugh Roberts argues in the pages of the London Review of Books—the general consensus is that Egypt has returned to an authoritarian grip albeit this time with the masses cheering along. Whatever happened on January 25 failed miserably in transforming the country in the direction of a true democracy.

For those lamenting the failure of a revolution that captivated the world, the blame is usually placed on two forces: Egypt’s military and the Muslim Brotherhood. A military that never accepted the notion of civilian control and that aimed to protect its exclusive domination of the state and its economy and a Brotherhood that ruled in a noninclusive manner and alienated many segments of Egypt’s population have formed the basis of the explanations given by analysts as to why Egypt reached the state it is in today.

Remarkably little attention has been given to the actions and choices of Egypt’s non-Islamist revolutionaries. Besides the usual criticism of their organizational weakness and the more recent critical look at those among them who supported the military coup, they have largely escaped any critical examination and hence blame. This is all the more surprising given the fact that three years earlier, when the crowds occupied Tahrir Square, both the media and Western analysts fixed their gazes on those young men and women, often described as liberals, democrats, moderates, and secular, to the extent of seeing nothing but them. Egypt’s revolutionaries were hailed as the heroic force that ended what seemed like an eternal dichotomy between repressive authoritarian regimes and totalitarian Islamists. People like Google executive Wael Ghonim, April 6 founder Ahmed Maher, and international diplomat Mohamed ElBaradei would create the much-awaited third alternative or route.

On January 25, 2011, thousands of Egyptians—some of them veterans of earlier demonstrations against Hosni Mubarak, some of them demonstrating for the first time in their lives—took to the streets to demand change. Three days later hundreds of thousands joined them, and fifteen days later Mubarak resigned as Egypt’s president. Who were those revolutionaries and where did they come from? What was their composition ideologically and organizationally? Why were they angry with the Mubarak regime and decided to bring it down? What were their demands and aspirations for a new Egypt? And how did they go about attempting to achieve them? To understand the story of Egypt’s revolution, one has to begin, not on January 25, 2011, but years earlier when those revolutionaries were meeting one another for the first time and acquiring the skills that they would later use to bring down the regime.

The lack of a thorough investigation of Egypt’s revolutionaries creates a serious gap in our understanding of the events that unfolded in the past three years. From their decision to call for mass demonstrations on January 25, 2011, their rejection of participating in politics, their calls for an end to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) rule, their continuous demonstrations and violent clashes with the police, and the choices they made in the par­liamentary and presidential elections, Egypt’s revolutionaries were not helpless victims but actors who affected and shaped the direction of the country. As Egypt continues on its destructive path into the abyss, it is important to examine what role the revolutionaries played in its trajectory.

***

During the magical eighteen days of ­Tahrir Square, and while the revolution was still in its honeymoon, Amr Bargisi, one of Egypt’s most astute observers, said: “Egypt lacks the sort of political culture that can sustain a liberal democracy.”

The reason for his pessimism was not that he thought Egyptians are inferior to other peoples or that Egypt “seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients,” as David Brooks wrote.

His pessimism was grounded in a simple fact of life. You cannot achieve a result if there is no one trying to achieve it. A liberal democracy is not born out of thin air. It requires the existence of liberal democrats. And if the term means something more than people who are simply not Islamists and not extreme leftists, then they are absent in Egyptian politics. There are very few liberals in Egypt, not because Egyptians are averse to liberalism or are different from any other people, but because there is no liberalism in Egypt. There is no liberal discourse in the public square. People cannot belong to an ideology that does not exist. With hardly any liberal books written in Arabic and no translations of the major works of Western liberalism, those liberals in Egypt are but a privileged few who are able and willing to read in a foreign language.

Today, Egypt’s former revolutionaries are split between the submissive and the delusional, between those who have become no more than cheerleaders for a military coup and those who continue to dream of an endless revolution—or, as Leszek Kolakowski once remarked, “between lovers of prostitutes and lovers of clouds: those who know only the satisfaction of the moment . . . and those who lose themselves in otiose imaginings.”

It is easy to mistake them for helpless victims, men caught like Oedipus in a tragedy they cannot control. Greek tragedies, however, have little to offer in understanding the story of the Egyptian revolution and its failure, but perhaps another Greek contribution to civilization might be better suited for the task—Greek mythology. Unless they begin to learn from their mistakes, unless they embark on a journey of discovering their own country, unless they educate themselves not on the newest technology but on the oldest books, unless they start offering their countrymen something more than abstract principles, they are forever doomed, like Sisyphus, condemned eternally to repeatedly roll a heavy rock up a hill only to have it roll down again as it nears the top. An eternity of fruitless labor and endless disappointment.

Today, after the revolution and its hopes and disappointments, Egypt finds itself in a world it knows all too well—faith in the deliverance offered by one man. The hope is now invested in a military commander, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. It is dictatorship by demand, as it were. The country has been here before. For two decades, from 1954 to 1970, Gamal Abdel Nasser gave Egypt its moment of enthusiasm and then led it to defeat and heartbreak. It would take a leap of faith, and luck beyond what history offers, to believe that this faith in a redeemer will yield a better harvest than the one before it.

Throughout the previous three years and during the turmoil that shook Egypt to its core, I was in endless conversation with a small group of Egyptian liberals who cared deeply for their country. The three years would not have been the same without them; this article would not have been the same without their endless comments and opinions throughout that period. I am forever indebted to them.

About the author:
Samuel Tadros is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. At Hudson, he is researching the rise of Islamist movements in the Middle East and its implications on religious freedom and regional politics.

Source:
This article was published by Hudson Institute.

The post Egypt: Dictatorship By Demand – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.


India, China And The MoU On Brahmaputra – Analysis

0
0

By Wasbir Hussain

India and China signed three Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) during the Indian Vice President Hamid Ansari’s recent five-day visit to Beijing from 26 June– 1 July. One of them was on the ‘flood data’ of the Brahmaputra River – also called the Yarlung Tsangpo in China. In the past, we have heard of similar MoUs between the two neighbours on the Brahmaputra, and it is all about the sharing of the hydrological data of Brahmaputra River during monsoons. In the latest MoU on the subject that was signed on 30 June – in presence of Indian Vice President Ansari and his Chinese counterpart Li Yuanchao – Beijing agreed to provide 15 days’ additional hydrological data—from 15 May 15 to 15 October each year.

Bluntly put, the latest MoU on the Brahmaputra flood data means nothing as an additional 15 days worth of hydrological information will not enable India to deal with the problem any differently. What India needs is input from the Chinese side on dams and other projects Beijing is pursuing or intends to pursue based on the waters of the Yarlung Tsangpo. The 510 MW Zangmu dam built at the Gyaca County in the Shannan Prefecture of China’s Tibet Autonomous Region is expected to be commissioned next year. What must be noted is that Beijing has given clearance for the construction of 27 other dams on the Yarlung Tsangpo River that flows 1625 kilometres across China, and 918 kilometres through India in its downstream course.

Moreover, China actually plans to divert water at the Great Bend, located just before where the river enters India, also known as the Shoumatan Point; and also intends to build hydroelectric power projects that could generate 40,000 MWs of power. The plan to divert the Brahmaputra is a reality because China wants to solve the water scarcity in its arid northern areas. The diversion of the water is part of a larger hydro-engineering project, the South-North water diversion scheme, which involves three man-made rivers carrying water to its northern parts. If the water is diverted, the water levels of the Brahmaputra will drop significantly, affecting India’s Northeastern region, and Bangladesh. Estimates suggest that the total water flow will fall by roughly 60 per cent if China successfully diverts the Brahmaputra. Besides, it will severely impact agriculture and fishing as the salinity of water will increase, as will silting in the downstream area.

With an unprecedented mandate and a demonstrated policy to improve ties with its neighbours, the new Narendra Modi government in New Delhi can initiate setting up of something like a South Asia Shared Rivers Commission or Authority by bringing Bangladesh, Myanmar, Bhutan and Nepal on board. The Commission can begin by formulating a framework agreement among the states that share rivers for their use, development, protection, conservation and management of the water and related resources, and establish an institutional mechanism for cooperation among these states. Once such a commission emerges and a cooperative framework on the shared rivers is agreed upon by the concerned states, it can engage with China and try to bring Beijing on board. After all, eleven major rivers flow out of China to countries in its neighbourhood and there is enough commonality of interest.

Cooperation on the Brahmaputra with China is of utmost importance to India and Bangladesh. The principle of cooperation between China, India and Bangladesh—the Brahmaputra basin states—can be on the basis of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, mutual benefit and good faith in order to attain optimal utilisation and adequate protection; conservation of the Brahmaputra River Basin; and to promote joint efforts to achieve social and economic development. These actually are the guiding principles of an effective and successful Nile River Valley Cooperative Framework (NRVCF) involving Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as well as Eritrea as an observer. The NRVCF has enough flexibility in the sense that two of the nations who are part of the Framework can have certain specific bilateral understanding or arrangements. What is significant is that every member nation must maintain total transparency on its plans about utilising the resources of the shared river and inform the states concerned of any project at hand.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has already demonstrated India’s big power ambitions by his proactive foreign policy push, will be well advised to come up with a comprehensive shared river water policy, keeping China’s plans and/or intents in mind. Delay may cost India dearly and we may have a case of non-utilisation of waters of shared rivers such as the Brahmaputra – one that has neither being tapped for hydro-power or navigation, 26 years after it was declared National Waterways Number Two.

Wasbir Hussain
Executive Director, Centre for Development & Peace Studies, Guwahati, and Visiting Fellow, IPCS, New Delhi

The post India, China And The MoU On Brahmaputra – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Obama: Celebrating Independence Day – Transcript

0
0

In this week’s address, President Obama commemorated Independence Day by noticing the contributions and sacrifices from individuals throughout the history of this country – from our Founding Fathers, to the men and women in our military serving at home and abroad.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
July 4, 2014

Hi, everybody. I hope you’re all having a great Fourth of July weekend.

I want to begin today by saying a special word to the U.S. Men’s Soccer Team, who represented America so well the past few weeks. We are so proud of you. You’ve got a lot of new believers. And I know there’s actually a petition on the White House website to make Tim Howard the next Secretary of Defense. Chuck Hagel’s got that spot right now, but if there is a vacancy, I’ll think about it.

It was 238 years ago that our founders came together in Philadelphia to launch our American experiment. There were farmers and businessmen, doctors and lawyers, ministers and a kite-flying scientist.

Those early patriots may have come from different backgrounds and different walks of life. But they were united by a belief in a simple truth — that we are all created equal; that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Over the years, that belief has sustained us through war and depression; peace and prosperity. It’s helped us build the strongest democracy, the greatest middle class, and the most powerful military the world has ever known. And today, there isn’t a nation on Earth that wouldn’t gladly trade places with the United States of America.

But our success is only possible because we have never treated those self-evident truths as self-executing. Generations of Americans have marched, organized, petitioned, fought and even died to extend those rights to others; to widen the circle of opportunity for others; and to perfect this union we love so much.

That’s why I want to say a special thanks to the men and women of our armed forces and the families who serve with them — especially those service members who spent this most American of holidays serving your country far from home.

You keep us safe, and you keep the United States of America a shining beacon of hope for the world. And for that, you and your families deserve not only the appreciation of a grateful nation, but our enduring commitment to serve you as well as you’ve served us.

God bless you all. And have a great weekend.

The post Obama: Celebrating Independence Day – Transcript appeared first on Eurasia Review.

ISIS Jihadists Demolish Mosques, Shrines In Northern Iraq

0
0

Islamic militant sect, ISIS, which has been rampaging across the north and west of Iraq since last month, has been demolishing sacred sites such as shrines and mosques around the historic northern city of Mosul in Nineveh province.

Photographs from the area posted online under the banner “Demolishing shrines and idols in the state of Nineveh” depicted mosques being turned into piles of rubble – explosives deployed against Shiite buildings – and bulldozers flattening the shrines.

At least four shrines to Sunni Arab or Sufi figures have been destroyed by the bulldozers, according to AFP. The structures had been built around graves of Muslim saints. Six Shiite mosques have also been destroyed using explosives.

“We feel very sad for the demolition of these shrines, which we inherited from our fathers and grandfathers,” 51-year-old Mosul resident Ahmed told AFP.

“They are landmarks in the city,” he said.

Local residents verified that buildings had been destroyed and two cathedrals occupied to the agency. Crosses at the front of Mosul’s Chaldean cathedral and Syrian Orthodox cathedral were removed and replaced with the black flag of the Islamic State.

The city of Tal Afar, approximately 70km west of Mosul, was also targeted, with a Shiite Huseiniya temple being blown up.

One of the shrines destroyed had survived a prior targeting by the group on June 24.

“Dozens of men, women and children formed a human wall and surrounded the sacred shrine of Sheikh Fathi in al-Mushahada neighbourhood of western Mosul and prevented the terrorists from storming it,” Ninawa tribal council deputy head Ibrahim al-Hassan told Al-Shorfa shortly after the incident.

Sheikh Fathi’s shrine – one of Mosul’s most important, dating back to 1760, was among those destroyed.

Mosul was captured on June 10 when Sunni militants drove Iraq’s army out of the city. Thousands of civilians fled as jihadists took control of the city against the Shi’ite majority Baghdad government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki has sworn to defeat the jihadists; on Friday he stated publicly that: “Pulling out of the battlefield while facing terrorist organizations that are against Islam and humanity would show weakness instead of carrying out my legitimate, national and moral responsibility.”

“I have vowed to God that I will continue to fight by the side of our armed forces and volunteers until we defeat the enemies of Iraq and its people,” he said.

The post ISIS Jihadists Demolish Mosques, Shrines In Northern Iraq appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Libya Added As Well To Turkey’s ‘Blacklist’ In Middle East – OpEd

0
0

By Ihsan Bal

The world has become a strange place for Turkey. And such strangeness is all the more salient in the case of the Middle East. Too often, Turks are treated as the scapegoat in the region. The latest challenge has been posed by General (Ret.) Khalifa Haftar from Libya.

General Haftar boldly proclaimed that all Turkish and Qatari citizens living in the eastern part of Libya should leave the country within 48 hours. Two Turkish workers were abducted two days after General Haftar’s statement.

We are under attack in Somalia. They drive us off in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. And last but not least, our embassy was raided in Mosul, a city idealistically deemed to be part and parcel of Turkey according to Misak-ı Milli, or the ‘National Oath’, a historical manifesto in which Turkey’s raison d’etat is embodied. As for Kirkuk, here, Turkmens have already been disarmed.

Do we owe such an overall setback to some kind of mischief that we are up to, or is it because we Turks are being caught totally off guard? We hope neither is true.

A media blackout will only help us to a certain extent in keeping up appearances, the truth will eventually come to light.

At least regarding the case specific to Libya, there is a pressing need for situation assessment and risk analysis.

Stillborn democracy

The government in Libya exists only virtually. It couldn’t proceed to democracy. In a country which could not attain stability despite elections being carried out up to date, the people are now faced with ‘democracy fatigue’.

Approximately 1.8 million registered voters, 62% of the total 2.8 million, went to the polls in the first parliamentary elections of Libya in 2012. And with the number of registered voters falling to 1.6 million in the elections of June 25, 2014, only 630 thousand actually cast a ballot.

In sum, Libya’s experience with democracy was stillborn. The Libyan people are not convinced that democracy can make a significant change.

Combined with deep-rooted problems such as prevailing chaos, insecurity, economic collapse, and a lack of justice; the ‘failed state’ that is Libya gave rise to a political figure like General Haftar.

Haftar served as a general under Colonel Gaddafi. Taking advantage of the current situation in the country, he claims to have the key to ‘national liberation’. Prima facie, his political ‘career’ bears a marked resemblance to that of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt.

Autonomous structures

Events in Libya can neither be generalized nor categorized easily. Governmental institutions, socio-economic groups, and religious factions are irrelevant in this regard in the Libyan context. The situation is utterly complex. For instance, Ansar al-Sharia and February 17, which are both militant groups, control several governmental institutions in the eastern city of Benghazi. Likewise, other groups which ask for further autonomy in the east are fighting to take control of seaports and stake claims to the oil extracted in the region.

Armed militias could not be integrated with national security forces after the civil war was over, despite all efforts in this direction.

Added to the equation is the fact that clans and tribes still play a prominent role in Libya’s political scene, further thickening the plot. But there is more to the impasse than meets the eye.

General Haftar receives support from various groups within the army, intelligence, and police, as well as from political figures in the parliament. There is a special brigade under his direct control called the Libyan National Army. He is a figure backed by those who are dissatisfied with the post-Gaddafi era in which we currently find ourselves. He is wrestling with “Islamists”, whom he believes to control Benghazi and the General National Congress.

It may not be that important what General Haftar, who lost two major wars in his career, will accomplish; but it is for certain that he will fan the flames of chaos. On top of it, what concerns us more is the fact that he is threatening to expel Turks and Qataris from the country, for he accuses them of sponsoring Islamists.

In such a chaotic environment where unpredictability looms and dangerous liaisons are common, it is difficult to discern who is who, and more difficult to track the rapidly shifting balances. What is more, this situation is not limited to Libya.

Therefore it is apparently necessary for the Turkish Foreign Service to be cautious and vigilant under such circumstances, and refrain from demonstrating “overconfidence” as it did in the case of Mosul. Such a shift in attitudes would be in the best interest of both Turkey and Turkish citizens abroad.

Ihsan Bal, Head of USAK Academic Council

The post Libya Added As Well To Turkey’s ‘Blacklist’ In Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

NATO Awaits BiH Progress On Alliance Membership

0
0

By Mladen Dragojlovic

NATO is waiting for Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to make progress in the process of becoming an Alliance member despite a political stalemate in the country that has delayed activation of the membership action plan (MAP), officials said.

A conference on the 65th anniversary of NATO took place last month in Banja Luka during which local analysts, NATO representatives and other visitors discussed issues pertinent to Alliance membership.

Experts said the BiH political stalemate needs to be overcome to avoid the country becoming isolated while the other regional countries move along in the integration process.

“Since the war, BiH made some progress and has one army, which is significant. But if we compare the situation with that in other countries in the region, BiH is left behind,” Damon Wilson, executive vice president of the Atlantic Council and a key speaker at the conference, told SETimes.

Wilson also said lack of progress will translate into a huge loss of opportunities and a brain drain.

“The best [cadres] will leave the country and find opportunities elsewhere. … In the worst case scenario, it can lead to additional tensions and more serious challenges in political arena,” Wilson said.

BiH has fulfilled almost all conditions for activating the MAP, but the main obstacle is the registration of military property in state institutions, said Ole-Asbjorn Fauske, deputy commander at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo.

“The allies thought it will be an easy matter to resolve, but it was not. … But when BiH activates the MAP, there will be more mechanisms available in society. It will provide greater, additional opportunities. But it remains on the politicians to resolve it,” Fauske told SETimes.

Some experts raised the issue of Republika Srpska’s close ties to Russia. In all countries that joined NATO there was an internal consensus about Alliance membership, and that is not the case with BiH, said Milos Solaja, a professor at the Political Science Faculty in Banja Luka.

“We need to reach consensus on a very important question: whether we stand for a society of liberal values or not? The Alliance members are not advanced [democracies] because they are in NATO, but vice versa. We are really emotionally linked with Russia, which geopolitically cannot help us too much. But, we have Russian investments in Republika Srpska,” Solaja told SETimes.

The post NATO Awaits BiH Progress On Alliance Membership appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Who Is Responsible For Climate Change?

0
0

Calculating the cumulative cost of carbon dioxide emissions gives new insights into the question of who is responsible for climate change.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the 2009 Climate Convention Conference in Copenhagen was the issue of carbon debt. Developed countries called for emission reductions in developing countries, while the latter use the former’s historical emissions, their carbon debt, as a reason for inaction. An article recently published in Scandinavian Economic History Review suggests how to finally settle this question of historical responsibility.

Jan Kunnas from the University of Stirling and his colleagues from universities in the UK and New Zealand examined how to incorporate the environmental effects of fossil fuel use into the national accounts and measures of sustainability. They suggest using a single global price for carbon dioxide emissions, as there is in the long term no possibility for a single country to isolate itself from the impacts of climate change. Every country will be affected to some degree, say from increases in food prices as climate change has negative impacts on global food production or from climate refugees. Ethically speaking, the use of a global damage cost indicates a belief that we are all in the same lifeboat when it comes to the long-term effects of climate change. Furthermore, the calculated price should decrease as we move back in time to take into account that carbon dioxide is a stock pollutant, and that one unit added to the present large stock is likely to cause more damage than a unit emitted under the lower concentration levels in the past.

There is a large variation between different estimates of the costs of carbon dioxide emissions, depending on the estimates of future mitigation or a business as usual approach and the damage the estimated emission path will lead to. To account for this variation a low, medium and high price was used to calculate the annual costs of carbon dioxide emissions. This shows how much lower annual GDP would be, if future generations bearing the costs of climate change could demand compensation for this externality. In Britain the costs of carbon dioxide as a share of GDP peaked at the eve of the first oil crisis in 1971 between 0.3% and 4.3% depending on the price used, and in the USA between 0.4% and 5.4% of GDP.

The annual effects of carbon dioxide might be small, but the cumulative effects are not. For Britain the cumulative effects from 1800 to 2000 range from £100 to £1400 billion, and for the USA from $960 to $13,600 billion (in 2000 prices). In other words at most the cumulative carbon debt exceeds, the annual GDP, which in 2000 were £916 billion in the UK and $9951 billion in the USA.

Calculating the cumulative cost of carbon dioxide emissions provides us an opportunity to finally settle the question of historical responsibility for the damages caused by climate change. The choice of price has a big influence on the accumulated costs, but it does not affect the relative position of different countries. With both a constant price and a declining price the USA has the highest cumulative cost of carbon emissions during the period 1902—2009, contributing 24–27% of the cumulative global cost, followed by the EU with 17–19%. China is nowadays the biggest source of carbon dioxide, but the cumulative costs of its emissions are still long behind with 10–12%.

These calculations support the notion that the main reason for a warming climate is the historical greenhouse-gas emissions of developed countries; 41–47% of the costs are due to the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide from the USA and the EU alone. On the other hand, the emissions of the big four major contributors account for only 57–59% of the total cumulative costs, leaving over 40% to the rest of the world, supporting the need for a global treaty put forward by developed countries. The starting point for such treaty could be a mutual debt cancellation, developed countries’ carbon debts offsetting developing countries’ conventional monetary debt, leaving the dispute about historical responsibility behind.

The post Who Is Responsible For Climate Change? appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Characteristics Of Islamophobic Twitter Trolls Revealed

0
0

An academic from Birmingham City University has published a rare study into the rise in online Islamophobia, revealing the ‘Eight Faces of Hate’ that characterise Islamophobic cyber trolls.

Imran Awan, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, looked to twitter to see if Muslims are viewed differently after the murder of soldier Lee Rigby last year in Woolwich, given the sharp rise in in Islamophobia-related incidents following the attack.

Three hashtags – #Woolwich, #Muslim and #Islam – were used to examine patterns regarding online Islamophobia on Twitter, having appeared on the Twitter search engine as words that had recently ‘trended’ in the UK.

From the data collected, the majority of tweets (72 percent) were posted by males and over 75 percent of the tweets examined displayed a strong Islamophobic feeling, whereby users made use of Muslim stereotypes to justify their abuse.  Imran highlighted an example of this where some twitter users were open about their anger and hatred for all Muslims as a result of recent cases surrounding minority groups of Asian men who were convicted of grooming underage girls.

Imran identified a series of reappearing words and phrases that were used to describe Muslims in a negative manner. These included; ‘Muslim Paedos’ (30 percent), ‘Muslim terrorists’ (22 percent), ‘Muslim scum’ (15 percent), ‘Pisslam’ (10 percent) and Muslim pigs’ (9 percent). The study highlighted how the term ‘#MuslimTerrorists’ became part of the September 11 trending words across Twitter, where Muslims were being depicted through pictures and videos as extremists and terrorists.

Imran Awan, Senior Lecture in Criminology at Birmingham City University, said: “This study highlights that Islamophobia has now reached the virtual environment as well as the many cases we hear about offline abuse, online Islamophobia can be considered the new threat.

“Indeed, what this study shows is that both government and the police need to do much more to tackle the rampant online abuse and harassment Muslims have begun to suffer, in particular post Woolwich which has shown a sharp spike in online anti-Muslim hate.”

Categorising the cyber trolls: ‘Eight Faces of Hate’

  • The Trawler: Someone who has gone through other people’s twitter accounts to specifically target people with a Muslim connection
  • The Apprentice: A person who is fairly new to Twitter but nonetheless has begun to target people with the help of more experienced online abusers
  • The Disseminator: Someone who has tweeted about and retweeted messages, pictures, and documents of online hate that are specifically targeting Muslims
  • The impersonator: A person who is using a fake profile, account, and images to target individuals
  • The Accessory: A person who is joining in with other peoples conversations via Twitter to target vulnerable people
  • The Reactive: A person who following a major incident, such as Woolwich, or issues on immigration, will begin an online campaign targeting that specific group and individual
  • The Mover: Someone who regularly changes their Twitter account in order to continue targeting someone from a different profile
  • The Professional: A person who has a huge following on Twitter and regardless of consequences has and will launch a major campaign of hate against an individual or group of people because they are Muslim. This person will also have multiple Twitter accounts all aimed at targeting Muslim communities

Published in the peer-reviewed journal: ‘Policy & Internet’ the study entitled ‘Islamophobia and Twitter: A Typology of Online Hate against Muslims on Social Media’ examines a random sample of 500 tweets from 100 different Twitter users, from the UK, which were posted between January 2013 and April 2014.

The post Characteristics Of Islamophobic Twitter Trolls Revealed appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Turn Back Crime Steps Up A Gear With Formula 1

0
0

Two of the world’s best known Formula 1 racing drivers – Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen – are adding their voices to the Turn Back Crime campaign.

Their video message, filmed with Scuderia Ferrari Team Principal, Marco Mattiacci, at Ferrari’s private Fiorano test track in Maranello, Italy, keeps the Turn Back Crime campaign at full throttle.

Alonso and Raikkonen are the latest high-profile figures to support the campaign, joining film star Jackie Chan, international footballer Lionel Messi, and Ducati Team, whose rider Andrea Dovizioso recently gained a podium place in the Moto Grand Prix.

These ambassadors want to inspire their millions of fans to play their role in protecting the things in life that we treasure the most. The Turn Back Crime campaign is about breaking down barriers between police and public; creating a dialogue to build a relationship of trust; an inclusive approach to help people feel safe and to help reduce the fear of any form of crime.

As part of this, it is crucial for people to understand better the crime issues of today and how they can better protect themselves and their families.

For example, buying fake goods, illicit medicines and counterfeit items isn’t about a cheaper option, it feeds organized crime and terrorism.

INTERPOL’s Turn Back Crime campaign seeks to enlist the support of citizens and companies not ordinarily associated with fighting crime to demonstrate that each of us has an important role to play in making the world safer, and a contribution in developing worldwide a culture of legality.

In reaching out across borders and cultures, and using new language to speaking about fighting crime INTERPOL hopes that people young and old will embrace this concept and will find new and innovative ways to communicate how we can Turn Back Crime together.

The post Turn Back Crime Steps Up A Gear With Formula 1 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Moldova Police Seize Smuggled Snake Venom

0
0

In a sting against organized crime, Moldova police have seized a record amount of snake venom destined for sale on the black market and arrested members of the criminal network which smuggled the substance into the country.

Following a month-long investigation into the network’s activities, police with the Moldova General Police Inspectorate, Information and Security Service and General Prosecutor’s Office conducted a joint operation where they seized 9,000 vials of snake venom – a total of 5 kg of the substance – and arrested six Moldovan nationals.

According to police, the venom was smuggled into Moldova from Afghanistan, and the criminal group was attempting to sell it for some EUR 2.8 million.

“Cooperation among the many law enforcement agencies in Moldova was a key factor leading to the success of this operation,” said Fredolin Licari, Head of the INTERPOL National Central Bureau in Moldova.

“The safety of our citizens is a priority for all law enforcement in Moldova. Therefore, we will continue to work closely with each other and with our counterparts around the world via INTERPOL to turn back crime and send a strong message to criminals that Moldova will not tolerate any illegal activities,” he concluded.

The venom from vipers and other poisonous snakes is used for medicinal purposes. On the legitimate international market, snake venom is typically sold for EUR 800-2,000 per gram, making it a lucrative substance for criminal groups to smuggle and sell illegally.

“Organized criminal networks seek to exploit many types of illicit or smuggled goods in order to fund themselves, though this is the first case INTERPOL is aware of involving such an unusual and exotic item as snake venom. This exceptional case brings a new dimension to these criminal endeavours,” said Michael Ellis, Head of INTERPOL’s Trafficking in Illicit Goods and Counterfeiting unit.

“The Moldova police and law enforcement authorities should be commended for their success in identifying this smuggling group and preventing them from making any profits from the illicitly obtained venom, which they could have then used to poison society through other serious criminal activities,” added Mr Ellis.

Launched in 2012, INTERPOL’s Trafficking in Illicit Goods and Counterfeiting initiative seeks to identify, disrupt and dismantle the transnational organized networks behind this crime, and also identify the routes used in transporting illicit goods, which are often also used for human trafficking and drug smuggling.

The post Moldova Police Seize Smuggled Snake Venom appeared first on Eurasia Review.

EU Widens Tax Investigation Into Multinationals

0
0

(EurActiv) — The European Commission is widening its probe into how multinationals use countries such as Luxembourg to cut their tax bill, an official with knowledge of the matter said on Friday (4 July).

Last month, the Commission warned Ireland, another EU country that offers companies offshore tax status, that it could investigate more companies beyond Apple Inc. as part of its probe into European tax practices.

“The Commission continues to gather information on the tax practices of member states … and this might lead to new formal investigations,” said the official, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

“It would be premature to speculate on whether … formal investigations could be opened about any specific company.”

Luxembourg is used by many multinationals including online retailer Amazon, building equipment maker Caterpillar and UK mobile telecoms group Vodafone.

Pushed by France and Germany, Brussels is keen to clamp down on what it sees as unfair tax competition across the bloc.

If the Commission can prove countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland agree tax treatments that diverge from international rules, it could deem any corporate tax savings to be a form of subsidy that must be halted or even repaid.

In a strongly worded statement in March, the Commission, the EU executive, chastised Luxembourg, saying it had “failed to adequately answer previous requests for information” and ordered it to outline many details of its tax system.

The finance ministry in Luxembourg was not immediately available for comment on Friday, but in June it said it had “doubts about the legality of certain aspects of the European Commission’s information requests.”

Corporate profit-shifting has come under the international spotlight in recent years following reports of how companies such as Apple use complex structures to slash their tax bills.

A Reuters examination in 2012 of accounts filed by 25 Amazon units in six countries showed how tax arrangements in Luxembourg also allowed the company to avoid paying more tax in the United States, where the company is based.

Tax advisers say Luxembourg has helped attract more than 40,000 holding companies and thousands of high-paying jobs for its population of nearly half a million.

The post EU Widens Tax Investigation Into Multinationals appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Return Of Kashmiri Pandits – OpEd

0
0

India’s newly elected Prime Minister Mr Modi leading National Democratic Alliance (NDA=BJP+ other supporting parties) at the centre seems committed towards ensuring the return of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus of Kashmir valley who had left Kashmir in 1990’s and when the armed conflict broke out).

Though this is not the first rehabilitation package for Pandits, it is certainly appreciable and unique as the Prime Minister after having recently taken over is fast delivering on the promises made in the election manifesto.

The whole Kashmiri Muslim society seems equally happy about the idea, who have been communally labelled and even sometimes treated as being responsible for the Pandit exodus, which is however a concocted myth. The fact remains that when the turmoil hit the valley in 1989 and armed conflict started, law and order literally collapsed and the lives of all became endangered.

Minorities in such a tumultuous atmosphere turned doubly vulnerable and left their homes in distress. It is not that Muslims wanted them to leave, but instead lamented their forced migration. Not only Pandits, but many Kashmiri Muslims left the valley in panic.

Now the Home Ministry is set to approve an enhanced package of Rs. 20 lakh per family for re-construction of their houses in the Valley, which is a welcome step with a human touch. Nevertheless, the question remains about the very design and methodology of the idea of “making the return possible” after a gap of more than two decades with lots of apprehensions still in the collective psyche.

The new rehabilitation plan should not be merely incentive based — like the previous plans and packages — but the top priority must be given to the very question of security and safety of the human lives involved, as uncertainty has not left from the valley. Also there has to be a holistic and comprehensive rehabilitation of not only Pandits but all the migrant groups or individuals — be that Kashmiri Muslims, Pandits, Sikhs, Christians or others. Even those who crossed the border for training as militants, but never returned and settled in Azad Kashmir need to be given a general amnesty and a chance to return back to their land with dignity. Also all there needs to be ample compensation for those who lost family and loved ones, or handicapped during the conflict. Additionally, there needs to be helped for those whose businesses were affected due to the armed conflict.

Politicising the Pain of Pandits

Since Pandits left the valley, their pain and collective suffering has been highly politicised by vested interests. Instead of sincerely thinking about their true welfare and possible return, a blame game has been launched and conspiracy theories abound along with a plethora of self-fulfilling prophecies gaining ground.

Though the central and state governments have tried their best to make the Pandit return a reality a lack of proper policy and planning and consistent uncertainty and violence in the valley has marred the whole dream. Whereas the politicians continuously benefited by throwing blame on each other and by maintaining that the exodus of the community from the Valley took place in 1990 when Mr Jag Mohan was the Governor of the state, thereby passing the entire blame to one person. Another blame mostly passed by politicians was that Mr Jagmohan (the governor) was appointed by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed (now the PDP patron), who was the Home Minister of India then.

Some have blamed Pandits for their migration, while others have blamed Muslims (being the majority community), and indeed some have blamed the Indian government and even Pakistan and its agencies. Who is to be rightly blamed is still to be discovered.

Discussing the exodus and playing blame games and benefiting from it is an old trend in Kashmir. Politicising the suffering and pain of communities like the Pandits and other minorities and winning political brownie points is simply condemnable, but continues to the present date.

The allegations and counter allegations tend to either unwittingly overlook or wrongly simplify the complexity of the situation which lead to a mass exodus from Kashmir. One that included about 50,000 Kashmiri Muslims besides nearly 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits in 1989-90 (who are now 6-7 lac in population).

The entire focus of inimical elements was to eliminate any symbol or entity that represented secular Kashmir in any way. As a result, the Kashmiri Pandits, the only Hindus of the Kashmir valley, who had constituted approximately 4& to 5% of the population of the Valley during Dogra rule (1846–1947), and 20% of whom had left the Kashmir valley by 1950, began to leave in much greater numbers in the 1990s. Statistics show that, approximately 100,000 out of the 140,000 total Kashmiri Pandit population left the Valley during that decade.

Other sources suggest a much higher figure. It would be naïve to believe that a highly organized and armed militancy surfaced all of a sudden. The fact remains that the undercurrents of militancy took strong roots during Farooq Abdullah’s’ stint over several years as CM and the 1987 rigged elections proved to be the last nail in the coffin. Besides Mr. Jagmohan can also be blamed for his nervous knee-jerk reaction when instead of arranging adhoc safe camps for Pandits somewhere in the Valley itself, he advised Pandits to leave Kashmir, which added to the pain.

In his recent work, P. Parimoo (2012) titled Kashmir Sher-e-Kashmir argues, “The nineties decade has been one of the Dark Ages for Kashmir as also for the rest of the country. It began with the Pakistan instigated ethnic cleansing in early 90s of Kashmiri Pandits and those of the Muslims who did not conform to the views of Pakistan backed elements. The period from 1989-90 witnessed the targeted killings of Government officials, media personnel, members of the judiciary, and members of the minority Kashmiri Pandit (Hindu) community.”

Of Pandit Return and Apprehensions

Why have the Pandits not been returning to the valley back? The simple answer is that ‘fear cannot be without reason’, so we need to see even after invitations by all sections of Kashmiri Society, including the separatist brigade along with the Centre, why a total return of Pandits seems difficult. It is not that they do not love their motherland, but still they feel alienated and unless and until their alienation especially within the political framework is not addressed, probably they will not return.

That said, it cannot be argued at all that their reverse migration is not possible now because of their settlement outside. The plight of Kashmiri migrants, the historical wrong that has been committed against them needs to be addressed properly. It is a fact that every Pandit wants to return home back.

The forced displacement of about two and a half lakh Kashmiri Hindus from the Valley has caused a number of psychological and behavioral problems in them. The majority of them felt as if they had been thrown away by a strong volcano, a storm of immense magnitude into a state of wilderness and their roots almost cut off.

The policy of compensating the security woes of the Kashmiri Pandits by doling economic packages and jobs only indicates the insensitivity of the government. Instead of politicizing their return, they needed to be genuinely empowered by creating secure environs, integrating them back with Muslims and getting their property back to them. If their migration or exodus was not triggered due to economic reasons then why would they return for economic packages?

To get to the bottom of their problems, there is a need to closely observe their problems, see their plight in their settlements and understand the trauma that they have gone through. The return of Kashmiri Pandits will not only benefit them, but the entire spectrum of the Kashmiri population because they were one of the important pillars of Kashmiri nationalism. Kashmiri Pandits were also part of the informal educational institutions in villages and hamlets, thus keeping the secular strands of Kashmir alive. Moreover, no individual or community can stay away from their roots happily and not want to return. Becoming established at the new place of settlement can never diminish the desire to reconnect with the motherland. But then what needs to be understood is that they have already lost a lot in life and have become risk averse. As such, many of them have hardly enough to put at stake. Hence, it is only infallible measures and resolute steps that can inspire confidence to take a chance.

Last Word

Let us not live in the old deficiencies and blame of the past, but rebuild the pluralistic and secular Kashmir and revive Kashmiriyat-our hallmark. Let us hope Kashmir prospers in every way under the leadership of Mr Modi.

At the moment everyone in the conflict torn state seems hopeful with the new establishment and expects a breakthrough in the prolonged issue of Kashmir and the issue of Pandit migration and pain, along with the killings of innocent Kashmiris and culture of uncertainty and impunity.

Frankly speaking the state governments have not been able to return the feeling of being secure to the terrified masses for decades now, and the common masses have alone been carrying the burden of the conflict. Mr. Modi and his interventions are certainly relevant to Kashmir at the moment as he has promised the state Insaniyat, Jamhooriyat and Kashmiriyat that his government will win their hearts and work for development of all. The Kashmir Valley needs economic and peace packages to limp back to progress, peace and growth. Instead of abrogating article 370-our identity, it badly needs the abrogation of armed forces special powers act (AFSPA) and other draconian laws so that masses feel a true relief. Rhetoric and blind blame game apart, the fact is that every Kashmiri Muslim wants Pandits to return back their homes.

For the purpose of safety it is desirable that they must be facilitated to build Pandit colonies, if they don’t want to settle back at places where from they had left. There is no need to politicise this issue and make it yet another crisis agenda in the valley that now keeps waiting for a spur.

(Adfar Shah is a Delhi Based Sociologist and Columnist on Kashmir affairs at pointblank7 and various other national and international newspapers and media groups. Mail at adfer.syed@gmail.com).

The post Return Of Kashmiri Pandits – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China Bans Ramadan In Uighur Northwest – Analysis

0
0

By Emre Tunç Sakaoğlu

The Chinese government banned Ramadan fasting for the Uighur minority in the country. Various public agencies, schools, newspapers, and official websites issued notices on the ban.

According to posts on official websites belonging to various public institutions, from grade schools and universities to the forestry and weather bureaus, students, teachers, civil servants, and party members, together with their families, are forbidden to observe Ramadan, which began at sundown on June 28.

Beijing deems fasting detrimental to students’ health and performance according to statements on several official websites of local governments such as the one in Yili. And in some cities such as Bole, municipal authorities as well as teachers are physically stopping Uighur children from going to mosques, according to media reports.

Harsh restrictions against Uighurs have also come to the fore in the counties of Zhaosu (Mongolkure), Ruoqiang (Kargilik), and Hotan, according to media reports. Moreover, in Turpan County, Muslims are even forbidden from performing the Salat prayer ritual at mosques.

Due to the indiscriminate implementation of the ban in many cities and counties of Xinjiang this year, many Uighurs who are to benefit from public services such as healthcare, are forced to sign documents pledging that neither them nor their families will take part in traditional fasting during the Islamic holy month.

A spokesperson for the exiled rights group World Uighur Congress told AFP that Chinese authorities were even inspecting houses in the region to see if people were fasting, and keeping record of the ones who were.

‘Business as usual’

Students of Uighur origin have not been allowed to wear clothes associated with their religious faith in Xinjiang in the past, and the ban continues to date. Moreover, students and teachers are still not allowed to participate in daily prayer even outside their schools.

Such restrictions on Muslim students have been implemented for years in order to protect them from ‘religious influences’, according to officials.

The Communist Party, which is officially atheist, stands against the “promotion of religion” in China. It is said to be wary of religious activities and groups because they can lay the ground for organized opposition to its single-party rule.

Worship is more strictly controlled in Xinjiang and neighboring Tibet because these are autonomous regions harboring minorities with distinct and well-established religious identities. And Uighurs are under close scrutiny due to their strong sense of ethnic and religious identity which easily differentiates them from the Han Chinese majority and the Communist Party.

Security as a pretext

After popular unrest which erupted in 2009 was harshly suppressed by security forces, leaving more than 300 dead in Xinjiang’s capital Urumqi, inter-communal violence between Uighurs and the Han Chinese, as well as terrorist attacks by radicals, has become common.

Violence associated with Uighurs has escalated all around the country especially in recent months with Xinjiang at the outset. On May 22, a bomb attack in a market at Urumqi, the regional capital of Xinjiang, led to the deaths of 43 people including the assailants. Likewise, on June 22, 13 Uighurs were killed and 3 police officers were wounded after a car rigged with explosives drove into a local police station in Kashgar.

Also, two recent attacks by assailants of Uighur origin were carried out against civilians at train stations in Urumqi and Kunming, the capital of the southwestern province of Yunnan. Officials blame Islamic extremists and separatists, with foreign terrorist ties, for consequent attacks against government, police, and civilian targets.

As a response to the string of fatal attacks in question and the unabated unrest among Uighurs, Beijing has recently started enforcing a security crackdown in the region. Last month it set a public rally to announce the arrest of 380 suspects who were associated with the latest events. But the government also tightened its grip over communal and cultural practices of the Uighur people, including mosque gatherings and fasting, in a bid to punish the Uighur people en masse.

A downtrodden people

Local Muslims blame the central government of inflaming violence and exaggerating the threat in order to have an excuse for repressive policies, assimilation campaigns, and the imposition of restrictions on communal rituals and cultural practices.

According to the native residents of Xinjiang, economic discrimination and harsh treatment by the police against ordinary Uighurs, added to cultural restrictions such as the prohibition of taking children to mosques, further fuel tensions between the Han Chinese immigrants and the native Uighurs.

Around 45% of the population that currently resides in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region consists of Uighurs, a pre-dominantly Muslim people of Turkic origin.

Muslims all over the world, during the month-long ritual of Ramadan, fast from dawn to dusk. Ramadan is celebrated as a communal festival in many Muslim countries, where related daily events serve as a prominent symbol of spirituality, solidarity, and piety.

The post China Bans Ramadan In Uighur Northwest – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images