Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73722 articles
Browse latest View live

Bahrain: Drop Charges Against Opposition Leaders, Says HRW

$
0
0

Bahrain should immediately drop charges against two prominent opposition members for meeting with a US diplomat on July 6, 2014. Bahrain should repeal the law that bars leaders of political societies from meeting with foreign diplomats without government permission.

On July 10, Bahrain’s public prosecutor brought charges against Sheikh Ali Salman, the leader of Bahrain’s main Shiite opposition party Al Wifaq, and Khalil al-Marzooq, the party’s deputy leader. They were charged with violating Bahrain’s law on political associations by meeting with the US assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, Tom Malinowski, without government permission. On July 7, Bahraini authorities declared Malinowski persona non grata and ordered him to leave the country.

“Bahrain basically told the US that the human rights situation in the country is none of its business,” said Sarah Margon, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “It also sent a message to the rest of the world that anyone who wants to properly engage on rights issues will be persona non grata. This aggressive tactic demands a response. It’s time for the US and others to flex a little muscle of their own.”

Concerned countries should urge Bahrain to drop charges against the Al Wifaq leaders and stop harassing them, Human Rights Watch said. The United States should also consider recalling its ambassador for consultations until Malinowski’s persona non grata status is reversed and the related charges against the Al Wifaq leaders are dropped.

On July 6, Al Wifaq hosted Malinowski at a Ramadan reception in Manama. Al-Marzooq told Human Rights Watch that Malinowski had urged Al Wifaq in their meeting to participate in October elections and to re-engage with a stalled process of national dialogue.

The next day, Bahrain’s state news agency confirmed that the Foreign Affairs Ministry had declared that Malinowski was “unwelcome and should immediately leave the country, due to his interference in its internal affairs.” The ministry said that his meeting with Al Wifaq was “contrary to diplomatic norms and relations between states.”

On July 8, Salman and al-Marzooq received summonses to appear for questioning at Bahrain’s Criminal Investigation Directorate on July 9. On July 10, the public prosecutor further interrogated both men and charged them with violating the 2005 Law for Political Societies. Al-Marzooq told Human Rights Watch that most of the questions focused on what was said at the meeting with Malinowski.

In September 2013, Justice Minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ali Al Khalifa announced an amendment to the 2005 law to require political groups to secure advance government permission before meeting with foreign diplomats in Bahrain and abroad and to be accompanied by a Foreign Ministry representative in such meetings. On September 19, 2013, a US State Department spokesperson called on Bahrain to rescind the change to the law.

Al-Marzooq told Human Rights Watch that Al Wifaq does not recognize the legitimacy of the restriction and that its leaders have met with many foreign diplomats without incident since it became law, including a May 2014 meeting with another senior US diplomat, Anne Patterson.

On July 10 three days after Malinowski’s ouster, the US State Department announced it had issued a formal complaint with the Bahraini embassy in Washington.

“Bahrain has been harassing, prosecuting, and jailing its peaceful opposition for years and ignoring any polite complaints from its allies,” Margon said. “The US and every other country that cares about human rights should ratchet up the pressure on Bahrain to stop the campaign against its human rights defenders and political activists”

The post Bahrain: Drop Charges Against Opposition Leaders, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Ralph Nader: The Myths Of Big Corporate Capitalism – OpEd

$
0
0

Large corporate capitalism is a breed apart from smaller scale capitalism. The former can often avoid marketplace verdicts through corporate welfare, strip owner-shareholders of power over the top company bosses and offload the cost of their pollution, tax escapes and other “externalities” onto the backs of innocent people.

Always evolving to evade the theoretically touted disciplines of market competition, efficiency and productivity, corporate capitalism has been an innovative machine for oppression.

Take productive use of capital and its corollary that government wastes money. Apple Inc. is spending $130 billion of its retained profits on a capital return program, $90 billion of which it will use to repurchase its own stock through 2015. Apple executives do this to avoid paying dividends to shareholders and instead strive to prop up the stock price and the value of the bosses’ lucrative stock options. The problem is that the surveys about the impact of stock buybacks show they often do nothing or very little to increase shareholder value over the long run. But they do take money away from research and development. And consumer prices rarely, if ever, drop because of stock buybacks.

Apple’s recent iPhone is produced by 300,000 low-paid Chinese workers employed by the Foxconn Technology Group. They are lucky to be paid $2 per hour for their long work weeks. It would take $5.2 billion a year to pay these Chinese iPhone workers about $10 per hour.

If the $130 billion from Apple’s capital return program was put into a foundation, it could pay out, at 4% interest, $5.2 billion year after year. Compare $130 billion of “dead money” to the $1 billion in “live money” Tesla Motors has spent on research and development to produce its revolutionary electric cars.

Forget marketplace competition when it comes to the abuse of the monopoly patent system for medicines, steeped in taxpayer-funded basic research, and its obsolete rationale for encouraging innovation. Welcome to the $1,000 pill – yes the price of Gilead Sciences latest drug, Sovaldi, which is used to treat hepatitis C, a liver-destroying virus. It is said to have fewer side effects and a higher cure rate than its counterparts. Taken daily at a cost of $1,000 a pill, the twelve-week treatment that is recommended for most patients costs $84,000 and a twenty-four week course of treatment for the hard-to-treat strain costs or $168,000.

Use of this drug is beginning to break the budgets of the insurance company payers. Representatives from Doctors Without Borders has said that a twelve-week course of treatment should cost no more than $500. Gilead did not sweat out the research and development of this drug. Gilead simply bought Pharmasset – the company with the patent on this drug. Not surprisingly, Gilead stock has surged upward, oblivious to surging public criticism.

Some overseas countries are not so submissive to the “pay or die” corporate edict. The nonprofit group I-MAK (Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge) has filed a challenge to the patent, claiming that Sovaldi is based on “old science” with “a known compound,” thereby not meeting India’s stringent requirements for patentability.

Additionally, economist Jamie Love has developed an alternative to such “pay or die” patent monopoly prices while keeping rewards for true innovations (http://www.keionline.org/).

Another example of corporate greed and waste is the astounding story of the White House trying to procure the replacement of is aging presidential helicopter fleet, which further undermines the myth that big corporations are more efficient than government. Under the George W. Bush administration, the Navy put in an order for 23 new helicopters from AgustaWestland, working with Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin. The price in 2005 was to be $4.2 billion. Three years later the price of the contract zoomed to $11.2 billion or $400 million per helicopter (about the price of an Air Force One 747).

Congress’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Air Force criticized the contractors and their subcontracting practices. As is usual, Lockheed complained that the cost overruns were due to government modifications.

In June 2009, the Navy terminated the contract after spending $4.4 billion and taking delivery of only nine of these (VH-71) helicopters. By December 2009, the White House and the Department of Defense officials washed their hands of this debacle. By that time, the projected cost had risen to $13 billion. In total, the bungled enterprise wasted $3.2 billion and this presidential procurement effort has to start all over again.

By comparison, $3.2 billion is greater than the combined budgets of Americorps, Public Broadcasting, public housing (Choice Neighborhoods), the Arts (NEA), the Humanities (NEH), the Peace Corps and the worker safety programs of OSHA.

Imagine if there was similar squandering of those budgets: there would be indignation roaring from Congress! When it comes to the defense industry, well that’s just business as usual, complete with the golden handshakes with the Pentagon for the almost certain cost over-runs.

Big corporations should not be allowed the myths of competitive, productive, efficient capitalism – unless they can prove it.

(For many more examples see my book Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism [Common Courage Press, 2011])

The post Ralph Nader: The Myths Of Big Corporate Capitalism – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Three World’s Richest Persons Unite Against US Congress

$
0
0

Three persons included in the list of the richest people of the world have united against the US Congress, which, in their opinion, had made a mess of the immigration reform, and published a joint column in The New York Times. “Americans deserve better than this,” the billionaires, who believe that Congress is not able to reach compromises and endangers citizens, write.

“The current stalemate – in which greater pride is attached to thwarting the opposition than to advancing the nation’s interests – is depressing to most Americans and virtually all of its business managers,” they write. According to Gates, Buffett and Adelson, the majority of Americans believe that it is in the interests of the country to create an immigration bill that would satisfy the interests of both migrants living in the United States and citizens of the country, but so far, the American policy fails on both fronts.

The billionaires note that they decided to speak out together, despite political differences: Gates and Buffett supported Obama, but Adelson spent almost $ 100 million in 2012 trying to prevent his re-election.

A separate column on the same topic for the Breitbart website was written by another famous American billionaire – Donald Trump. The businessman believes that the migration problem on the border with Mexico can be solved quickly. But, according to Trump, Obama proved that this problem was of no consequence to him. “A country that cannot protect its borders will not last long,” Trump emphasized.

The post Three World’s Richest Persons Unite Against US Congress appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Germany Wins World Cup After 1-0 Victory Over Argentina

Russia: Hoping Cuba Can Help Spur Trade With Latin America

$
0
0

By Peter J. Marzalik

Amid deteriorating relations with the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin is looking to diversify a Russian economy that is tightly linked to European markets. Fittingly, an old Soviet-era satellite state seems eager to lend a helping hand.

Emilio Lozada, Cuba’s ambassador to Russia, led a trade delegation in June to Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, a resource-rich republic located 500 miles east of Moscow on the Volga River. Garcia met with Tatarstan’s chief executive, Rustam Minnikhanov, to discuss Cuba’s efforts to emulate the “Tatarstan model,” which has seen the autonomous republic emerge as one of Russia’s most prosperous regions during the post-Soviet era.

Lozada explained that Cuban officials, in studying Tatarstan’s economic experiences over the past few decades, seek to “find many useful things for ourselves,” the Tatar-Inform news agency reported.

Cuba by no means represents an alternative to Europe, but the Kremlin is still very interested in encouraging Cuban trade. In late May, prior to the Cuban delegation’s trip to Tatarstan, two major Russian energy companies, Rosneft and Zarubezhnetf, signed joint exploration agreements with the Cuban energy concern, Cupet.

Underscored by its recent gas deal with China, Russia is intent on reorienting trade away from Europe. Toward this end, the Kremlin hopes an expansion of commerce with Cuba could act like a wedge, opening broader ties with Latin American states. The diversification push stands to make Russia less vulnerable to economic pressure, especially sanctions exerted by the United States and European Union in response to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Annual trade turnover between Russia and Latin America stood at $16.2 billion in 2012, according to International Monetary Fund data.

The Kremlin’s revived interest in Latin America was also evident in Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s recent tour of the region. Lavrov sought to bolster relations with old allies, such as Cuba and Nicaragua, as well as woo traditionally anti-Communist states, especially Chile and Peru.

During their Kazan meeting, Lozada and Minnikhanov discussed ways Tatar businesses in the oil, pharmaceutical, and tourism sectors could help bolster economic development in Cuba. “I think that this is a very useful undertaking. These contacts were started [back in the Soviet era], and now they need to be restored, to work actively with Cuba; through it they can access all of Latin America,” Shamil Ageev, the chairman of Tatarstan’s Chamber of Commerce, asserted.

While many Russian regions are struggling, Tatarstan has comparatively thrived over the past two decades. The republic produces 32 million tons of oil per year and possesses reserves estimated at more than 1 billion tons. In addition, Tatarstan hosts the Kamaz truck factory, the Kazan helicopter plant, and Tupolev aviation production facilities.

Cuba’s ties to Tatarstan date back to the early 1990s, a time known among Cubans as the special period, when the island’s economy imploded due to the Soviet Union’s collapse and cut-off of aid from Moscow. “We will never forget that late in the 90s, when our country experienced serious difficulties, Tatarstan opened an economic representation in Cuba,” Ambassador Lozada said in Kazan.

“Cooperation between Russia and Cuba are getting stronger and diverse ties between Tatarstan and Cuba develop within its framework. We are your friends and Tatarstan is open for you,” Mintimer Shaimiev, the former long-time Tatar president who now serves as a senior advisor to the autonomous republic’s government, was quoted as telling the visiting Cuban delegation.

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

The post Russia: Hoping Cuba Can Help Spur Trade With Latin America appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ron Paul: What’s Missing In Current Immigration ‘Crisis’ Debate – OpEd

$
0
0

Over the past several weeks we have seen a significant increase in illegal immigration, as thousands of unaccompanied minors pour across what seems an invisible southern border into the United States. The mass immigration has, as to be expected, put an enormous strain on local resources, and it has heated up the immigration debate in the US.

Most liberals and conservatives miss the point, however, making the same old arguments we have all heard before. Liberals argue that we need to provide more welfare and assistance to these young immigrants, while conservatives would bus them to the other side of the border, drop them off, and deploy drones to keep them out.

Neither side seems interested in considering why is this happening in the first place. The truth is, this latest crisis is a consequence of mistaken government policies on both sides of the border.

In fact much of the problem can be directly traced to the US drug war, which creates unlivable conditions in countries that produce narcotics for export to the US. Many of those interviewed over the past several weeks have cited violent drug gangs back home as a main motivation for their departure. Because some Americans want to use drugs here in the US, governments to the south are bribed and bullied to crack down on local producers. The resulting violence has destroyed economies and lives from Mexico to Nicaragua and beyond. Addressing the failed war on drugs would go a long way to solving the immigration crisis.

I understand the argument of some libertarians that there should be no limits at all on who comes into the United States, but the reality is we do not live in a libertarian society. We live in a society where healthcare is provided — often by over-burdened emergency rooms that cannot legally turn away the sick — “free” education is provided, and other support via food stamp programs is also made available for “free” to illegal immigrants. Many even argue that they should be allowed to vote!

In a free society where the warfare-welfare state ceased to exist, immigration laws would be far less important. A free market would seek workers rather than immigrants to add to its welfare rolls. Voting itself would decline in significance. If 20 people lived on a privately-owned island, for example, one owner could decide to have a guest on his property without bothering the other 19. Were we to move in this direction in the US, the current immigration crisis would be a thing of the past.

Over many years while I was in Congress, I met with scores of employers in my district who faced terrible red tape just to be allowed to bring in temporary agricultural workers who would willingly return home once the work was finished. How ironic that Americans willing to provide jobs for immigrants seeking honest work were thwarted by the same government that has now opened the door to a flood of immigrants seeking welfare and other assistance.

One thing we can be sure about: as Republicans and Democrats tussle over “reform” bills, more money will be thrown at the symptoms produced by past bad policies instead of addressing the real causes of the current crisis. The president’s $4 billion supplemental request to address the issue is a costly mix of welfare and enforcement that will do very little to solve the problem because it treats the symptoms instead of the cause. Real reform means changing a failed approach, and until that happens we can count on more expensive mistakes.

The post Ron Paul: What’s Missing In Current Immigration ‘Crisis’ Debate – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Berlin Launches Visionary Project For Interfaith Dialogue

$
0
0

By Francesca Dziadek

A leap of faith is on the agenda in Berlin where a visionary project for interfaith dialogue, launched as the House of One, hopes to bring Christians, Jews and Muslims to worship under one roof from 2018.

In a country where inter-religious dialogue has spun numerous initiatives for Christian-Jewish dialogue set up after World War II (1939-45) and post 9/11 – the time after a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 – public opinion in Germany has yet to come to terms with how it was possible for six million Jews to be murdered by the citizens of a Christian nation.

Sharing a symbolic shoe-burying ritual in the sandy soil of an empty plot of wasteland in Berlin’s historic centre, not far from the building site for new Humboldt Cultural Forum, an unlikely trio – a Pastor, a Rabbi and an Imam – stood side by side in June thanking the shared God of the three Abrahamic faiths they hope to come and pray to once the bold Church-Synagogue-Mosque in one building is completed.

Rabbi Tovia Ben-Chorin, Imam Kadir Sanci and Pastor Gregor Hohberg, the House of One’s initiators, are poised to become Berlin’s own “Tolerance Trio”: a term which refers to the U.S. interfaith National Conference of Christians and Jews in the 1930s, whereby a rabbi, a priest, and a minister – the “Tolerance Trio” – were dispatched to cities around the country in order to facilitate interfaith understanding promoting the idea of an America built on harmony among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants.

When in 1943 a German U-boat torpedoed the USS Dorchester and it began to sink – a rabbi, a priest, and a minister – helped to distribute life vests until they ran out and finally gave up their own to save more soldiers. Survivors saw the men praying arm-in-arm as the ship went down.

Standing on firmer ground, the House of One’s management board which includes Roland Stolte, House of One’s Project Manager, Cebrail Terlemez, Chairman of the Muslim Forum for Intercultural Dialogue (FID), – and Maya Zehden have been joined by a roster of prestigious names including Walter Homolka, Rector of the Abraham Geiger College, and Dr Gideon Joffe, Chairman of the Jewish Community Berlin. Berlin’s Senate Department for Urban Development and the Federal Ministry of the Interior are on the supervisory board.

Set up in 2011 as the association House of Prayer and Learning Petriplatz Berlin e.V. the Church-Synagogue-Mosque project is envisioned as a uniquely independent public venture, free from official sponsors and partisan donations. Backers and supporters, hope to raise 43.5 million Euros by 2016 through by collaborative crowdfunding encouraging anyone to donate – starting from a single, symbolic brick for 10 Euros. At least 10 million Euros will be required to complete a first phase of the project, which will not draw funds from the German church tax.

Spiritual foundation

The selected location, Peritzplatz, is none other than Berlin’s spiritual foundation.

When excavations in 2009 revealed remnants of Berlin’s earliest known Church, the Petrikirche and a Latin school dating back to 1350, the pastor, Gregor Hohberg became convinced that this coincidence, coupled with Berlin’s increasing multicultural demography and a cosmopolitan terrain provide the right humus for a project of this magnitude.

“The decision to locate the House of One right on this archaic and sacred bit of soil sends a very strong signal and a message about the commitment to peaceful multi-faith dialogue in Germany,” said Tim Renner, Berlin’s State Secretary for Cultural Affairs to IDN.

And Berlin’s interfaith team are confident that a new kind of shared covenant – and Promised Land – with God, Allah and Jehovah is possible in Germany.

“A place that has darkness in its past has the potential for peace in its future. As a Jew I associate Berlin with pain and deep wounds but that is not the end of the story,” is how Ben-Chorin describes his commitment to the project.

“For me Berlin is all about remembrance and rebirth.”

There is no denying Berlin’s unique historical, political and cultural backdrop. The city’s narrative – a sequence of destruction followed by visionary, monumental rebuilding – has often merged architectural design with bold political and spiritual dimensions.

Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, completed in 2001 is one of the world’s most striking emblems of reconciliation. Libeskind’s own name for the Jewish Museum project ‘Between the Lines’ started with the vision of two lines, the first straight broken and fragmented, the other tortuous but indefinitely continuous. The building gave visual form to the elements of fragmentation coexisting with hope, continuity and connection between Jews and Germans, East and West, tradition and present.

The House of One embodies the same endeavour, one that now incorporates Muslim citizens and Islam in a “laboratory for developing mutual understanding and respect” as the House of One website defines it.

Berlin’s Muslim community, 9 percent of the total population, counts approximately 160,000 individuals. 73 percent are of Turkish origin, and 7 percent stem from Bosnia-Herzegovina. 40,000 are naturalized German citizens, who have at their disposal 80 prayer centres and 4 Mosques, according to Berlin’s Senate for Religious Affairs, which are mainly situated in the city’s Kreuzberg and Neukölln districts where companies like Siemens contracted Turkish guest workers settled in the 1960s.

Berlin’s Jewish population, which includes a recent influx from Israel jumped to an estimated 50,000 in 2008 from pre-war 200,000, worships in 11 Synagogues.

Kuehn Malvezzi, the local architects who won the 2012 international competition conceived a core design element allocating three equal spaces to the prayer areas conjoined by a communal, 32m-high domed space for talks, discussions, and study of texts sacred to each of the three religious traditions. Believers, individuals from all religious backgrounds, as well as non-believers will be welcome.

Founding members include the Jewish Community of Berlin, and Abraham Geiger College, as the Jewish partner and the Islamic partner, the House of One selected the Forum for Intercultural Dialogue (FID), the Ahmaddiya community, which runs around a dozen Mosques in Germany and opened the first Mosque in East Berlin and is viewed favourably by the Ministry for the Interior which monitors more radical forms of Islam and the potential threat of Jihad preaching pulpits and video sermons.

The movement is led by a controversial, cosmopolitan Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen who is based in the U.S. and whose followers wield influence in Turkey’s judiciary. He remains a controversial figure and an on and off persona non grata in President’s Abdullah Gul’s books, accused by the Erdogan government of using the internet to flare up dissent, while thousands protested in the streets against Internet restrictions.

From the social and political point of view, Germany continues to have challenges “integrating” its 3.2 million Muslim community and still frames multicultural relations in a broadly assimilationist discourse.

The NSU (National Socialist Underground) – an extremist right-wing cell’s – trail of serial assassinations involving small Turkish shopkeepers was pursued by the authorities as mafia linked crime, as evidence pointing to the real culprits in neo-Nazi circles was ignored.

It revealed a troubling, racist, anti-Islamic blind spot and a new category of “anti-Islamic crime” is likely to be adopted to pursue criminal acts against Muslims in the same was as legal definitions protect and acknowledge victims of anti-Semitic and homophobic attacks. Gratuitous anti-Semitic attacks such as the beating of Rabbi Daniel Alter, as he walked home with his seven year-old daughter for wearing a Yarmulke skullcap as a visible sign of difference. This prompted the Jewish community to set up a databank for hate-crime incidents.

Interreligious experiments

If the House of One takes off – pending an achieved donation target of 10 million Euros – it would commit the reunited German capital to interfaith dialogue, locally and globally as examples of olive branch continue, around the world.

Increasingly interfaith dialogue is playing an important role on the world stage, and gaining ground as “foreign policy by other means” as the tide of sectarianism sweeps across the middle east, fanning centuries of rivalries between Shiites and Sunnis and brutalising the pluralistic aspirations of civil rights and religious – as well as secular – pro-democracy Arab spring uprisings.

As violence between Israel and Palestine continues to escalate in the Holy Land, Pope Francis’ visit in June spoke the softer language of symbolic interfaith diplomacy, building bridges through gestures, respect and prayer, placing a wreath on the grave of the founder of Zionism, removing his shoes to enter the dome of the Rock – the Noble Sanctuary to Muslims and Temple Mount to Jews escorted by a Rabbi and an Islamic scholar from Argentina.

In the UK where xenophobia and Islamophobia appears to be on the rise, an Orthodox rabbi, Nathan Levy, joined millions of Muslims around Britain in observing the month-long Ramadan fast, and hopes his unprecedented act will help to increase understanding of Islam within Anglo-Jewry.

It is perhaps due to complacency, and a general reluctance by political parties to publicly embrace the values of pluralistic multi-ethnic society, that Europe suffers bouts of intermittent amnesia about the extent to which the three faiths are interlinked. Often this leads to a slippery descent into hostility, prejudice and hate crime.

Friedrich the Great, Prussia’s 18th century enlightened monarch – who held that “all religions must be tolerated for every man must get to heaven in his own way” – welcomed expelled French Huguenot Protestants, Jews and Muslims and built the first Mosque for Turkish soldiers in Potsdam, cradle of 18th diversity and multiculturalism.

Spain’s Muslim Caliphate of Al-Andalus enabled peaceful multifaith coexistence, St Augustine preached the Christian Gospel in Tagaste, Algeria, a Roman city and Tunisia was a thriving centre of Jewish life whose ancient Ghriba synagogue from 586 BC is traced to a Jewish exodus following the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem.

European Jewry has been dealt the carrot and the stick for centuries on a spectrum from tolerance and civil rights to outright discrimination and persecution. Recently, the Spanish government reached out to Sephardic Jews, who were expelled in 1492 Alhambra Declaration in an effort to repatriate them with new citizenship legislation yet failing to dish out equal magnanimity to the Muslim Moriscos community, expelled in 1614 as part of Spain’s Christian Reconquista, built on the idea of mono-cultural ethnicity.

Lately the deaths of four people at the Jewish museum in Brussels, where the European Jewish Congress has its headquarters, sent shock waves of anti-Semitic fear around Europe. France’s six million Muslims and 500,000 strong Jewish community are sensing a new tide of anti-Semitism spreading in Europe as anti-Semitic discourse becomes “normalised” when far-right parties gain support, as in May to the European Parliament. With a nationalist party in Hungary, a neo-Nazi party in Greece, migration to Israel is on the rise. In France in 2013 over 3,000 French Jews out of a population of 500,000 migrated to Israel, according to the Jewish Agency for Israel which coordinates emigration.

EU anti-racism agency’s reports that 40 percent of all “hate crime” is committed against Jews.

The House of One’s initiators and supporters are confident that now more than ever is the time for an initiative of this kind as a forum for reconciliation through dialogue to help shine a light on the futility of ongoing devastation engendered by hostile rivalry, prejudice and sectarianism reaching out to difference and diversity rather than combating it as a threat to be uprooted.

Starting with children, visiting the centre’s learning project from Berlin’s multicultural who might be delighted to discover that Jesus was indeed an “idiot” – at least in the Greek testament meaning of the word – a man without a profession.

“This house will be a home to equality, peace and reconciliation.” said Pastor Hohberg.

The post Berlin Launches Visionary Project For Interfaith Dialogue appeared first on Eurasia Review.

How Can China Assure Its Peaceful Rise – OpEd

$
0
0

In his book Beyond the Age of Innocence – Kishore Mahabubani, a former Singaporean diplomat and renowned scholar, has made a stirring remark on U.S. – Vietnam Relations.

According to Mahabubani, America dropped over 7 million tons of bombs in Vietnam while during World War II, it was only 2 million. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were killed in brutal war and when the War was ended in 1975, there should have huge reservoir of hate among the Vietnamese against the Americans. Instead, “almost from the first day after the war ended, Americans could walk safely on the streets of Vietnam. . . Despite having fought a brutal war in Vietnam, America has left behind in Vietnam a huge reservoir of good will”.

There are numerous other examples in the world where countries engaged in a – fight to finish, have turned most trusted friends and allies. However, when we come to Asia especially in East Asia – the relations between the second and the third largest economies of the World- China and Japan, is quite unnerving.

We have seen how Chinese President Xi Jinping is trying to gather support from neighbors and world leaders to condemn Japan for the second Sino-Japanese war that was fought 77 years ago. However, during his visit to Germany in March this year, Xi was clearly told the host country’s displeasure against China’s efforts to drag them in its dispute against Japan, (Zachary Keck, The Diplomat, and March 29, 2014). Similarly, China is trying to unite South Korea and Taiwan against Japan for some war crimes committed by Japanese soldiers during the war fought decades ago.

Japan was one of the countries that suffered worst during the World War II – and especially at the hands of America, but today Japan has become the closest friend of the United States.

Even after fighting a most horrible war, America and Japan have become closest strategic partners cemented by bilateral alliances. America and Vietnam are trusted friends – even after an unparallel brutal war, but in East Asia, the war fought decades ago is impeding better relations between and among them.

Japan and South Korea are two successful democracies and two most successful economies too. Their markets are closely connected too. But, they have problems in their political relations – not experienced between any other two successful democracies – for war time atrocities Koreans suffered during Sino-Japan war in 1937. According to a official South Korean publication – Do Not Forget Me – a life story of a victim of military sexual slavery (January 2014), Korea was used as a “ logistical base to accelerate Chinese continental invasion” for Japanese troops. Even South Korea has developed –Teaching Learning Materials on the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan for elementary and secondary students.

Leading China through Internal and External Challenges

A country with the size of China – with its economy, military power, geography, and population -  deserves every right to claim for a leadership in the region and in the world. It is even in the best interest of global economic and political stability, but leadership cannot be demanded or commanded, but is to be earned while building confidence among neighbors and other nations – offering strong commitments to respect and protect their rights and vital interests. That would ultimately help the respective country to advance its own national interests in the long term.

One example is enough to elaborate this. There are many countries in the world, which take America as their ultimate savior, and with every new news and books published describing American decline; they feel a deep sense of their insecurity followed by political instability in the region they belong.

Leadership, demands a greater acceptability from its neighbors and other major powers. It grows in a natural way, based on the policies governing the political, economic and security regime of neighboring countries and major global powers.

China’s economic rise and its cheap products from clothes to electronic goods, has become a great boon to people worldwide – living under poverty and low income. Naturally, the size of its economy, demands a stronger military capability to protect its economic interests that are indispensible to maintain its internal peace and stability.

Nevertheless, China’s rise instead of promoting confidence and pride in its neighborhood has increased apprehensions among its neighbors. Territorial disputes with them have become more tensed. There are some indications of China’s involvement in the internal affairs of its neighbors – a long time foreign policy taboos of China. Including cross strait political complications, China’s sensitivity towards the unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang and their political linkage across the border has become an unending strategic challenge for China. Latent discontents in Hong Kong and other coastal areas for more substantive political reforms have been hounding Chinese leadership.

Systemic malfunctioning is another challenge. According to Wall Street Journal, just before stepping down in favor of Li Keqiang, China’s former Premier Wen Jiabao remarked that without political reform – “historical tragedies as the Cultural Revolution may happen again.” But, political reforms in a country that owns the world’s most powerful but second largest economy, is the hardest job.

It is tough task to understand the internal political dynamics of a closed society like China and therefore, when political heavyweights like Bo Xilai and General Xu Caihou – one of the most powerful political and military official an ex-Politburo member and former vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission are purged or punished rumor rules.

China’s President Xi Jinping has exhibited unusual political nerves against corruption and abuse of authority and has made the legal procedure take its course against senior most former officials of the party and government. Among those as mentioned above included a retired top general of the world’s largest Army and Zhou Yongkang, one of the most powerful person in China – also a former member of the Politburo Standing Committee, until retired in 2012 as the head of China’s internal security.

Giving reference to China’s Communist Party disciplinary commission CNN has said that only in 2013, some 182,000 officials were disciplined while courts nationwide tried 23,000 corruption cases.

As CNN reported in a statement released recently after Politburo meeting, President Xi and other Chinese leaders reiterated their “zero tolerance” for corruption in the government and military. Xi and other Politburo did not ignore the political implications of such actions that would be ‘ongoing, complex, and formidable’.

Few Friends but More Rivals

After China established an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea in November last year, it prompted new series of strategic resetting in East Asia and South East Asia.

Simply with this declaration China wanted to increase strategic pressure on Japan in its disputes over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, over which the ADIZ extends.

In return, Japan went through a rigorous policy homework and strategic calculation and in the first day of this month, Japan’s cabinet announced the reinterpretation of its constitution claiming the “Development of Seamless Security Legislation to Ensure Japan’s Survival and Protect its People”. The announcement is intended address the fundamentally transformed and complex security environment surrounding Japan and the region it confronts in maintaining its survival, peace and national security challenges.

The document is also focused on government’s responsibility “to create a stable and predictable international environment and prevent the emergence of threats by advancing vibrant diplomacy with sufficient institutional capabilities . . . develop, maintain and operate Japan’s own defense capability, strengthen mutual cooperation with the United States . . . and deepen trust and cooperative relations with other partners both within and outside the region.”

The basic logic the reinterpretation spells is to “avoid armed conflicts before they materialize and prevent threats from reaching Japan by further elevating the effectiveness of the Japan – United States security arrangements and enhancing the deterrence of the Japan- United States Alliance for the security of Japan and peace and stability of the region”.

One week after Japan announced the reinterpretation, marking the World War II Anniversary, Chinese President Xi Jinping issued a stern warning against Japan, and claimed, “It’s a pity that a small minority of people still ignore iron-clad history and the fact that tens of millions of innocent people lost their lives in the war. . .” Further he said, “This minority has repeatedly denied or even beautified the history of aggression, undermining mutual trust among states and creating regional tensions…” and “Anyone who intends to deny, distort or beautify the history of aggression will never be tolerated by Chinese people and people of all other countries.”

And according to Shannon Tiezzi of The Diplomat, there are obvious parallels with modern China, where nationalism and anti-Japanese sentiment are carefully stoked by the leaders to promote national unity among China’s various ethnic groups and social classes, including “compatriots” in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Indubitably, China is a great power and wants to grow greater and greater. A country of its size, economy, population, strategic location, and military power rightfully deserves it, but for such a great country, it is quite surprising that in East and South East Asia, almost all countries in the region have problems with their relations with China. With some of them, it has serious territorial disputes over small patches of land.

From Vietnam and the Philippines to Indonesia, Australia and from Japan and South Korea to India and America, China does have very few friends but more rivals. However, the size of its economy and its integration with major world economies- give China a large say in the life and sustainability of global economy. Therefore, China although not loved is not ignored or undermined, but engaged in all global decision making policies.

China has earned many more admirers for its unparallel economic success, but a lot more questions are there in the mind of people – whether China’s political system can manage its economy that is marching towards to become number one any time during the next decade. Will a likely economic super power – that will ultimately develop its military might proportionately during the next one or two decades, can sustain without any comparatively stronger but dependable and close allies in its immediate neighborhood.

And unfortunately, if Chinese political system fails to sustain and lead its economy – strongly integrated with major world economies, perhaps no country in world except some primitive societies can be saved. If China collapses, under its political burden as Soviet Union did, it will not be limited to the Chinese territory, but will turn into a global economic chaos and catastrophe – not experienced any time in past. China’s disintegration cannot be as peaceful as it was with the Soviet Union.

Prospective political Reforms and Universal Human Values

The global and regional implication of China’s rise is yet to take shape. In Europe, for example – Germany, France and England, could easily buried their centuries long bitter animosities and chose a new path of peace and prosperity that has brought the longest period of peace and prosperity for their people. It became possible because they share common political and social values, but in Asia such common values seems next to impossible.

Next, Europe could also develop a common security alliance led by United States and common security perceptions they developed worked as a cementing factor among them, whereas in Asia, it was almost none existent.

However, in Asia countries like China, India, Japanwith their huge economic, military buildup, have led a paradigm shift, and this will consequently define the twenty-first century. Much power with countries of conflicting political and social values and with countries with territorial disputes is likely to trigger serious conflicts between and among them.

No other parts of the World except in Middle East, Eastern Europe and some few other places, countries do have any territorial disputes, but In Asia major powers like China, Japan, India, South Korea, Vietnam, and Pakistan have serious territorial disputes between and among them.

Maybe China is misunderstood, but it is China’s responsibility to ensure and assure its neighbors about its peaceful rise and no heavy handedness against its neighbors. To make a grand move towards future why cannot China find solutions to its border disputes with India and reset its relations with another Asian power? Why cannot it go to international arbitration in its territorial disputes with its neighbors in East and South East Asia as India and Bangladesh did? Why cannot it say it will never attack its neighbors unless attacked first? If China’s neighbors feel a Chinese threat, they would certainly move towards the United States, India, and Japan to find a strong strategic partnership – if no alliances. Obviously, it is natural; China can growl and grumble about it but can do nothing if such partnership or an alliance comes into existence.

Therefore, China can only gain what it aspires only when it can invest huge stock of trust and confidence its relationship with its neighbors. What should never be forgotten is that history can be a best teacher but never a lifelong partner. A fine line is to be drawn there to ensure that bitter past should not embitter the present and promising future of countries like China – while making best use of national potential available at present.

Free access to all sea routes and a new law on international and regional waters is in the best interests of China’s major economic interests. A major breakthrough on a convention to control climate change and global heating is significantly important for country that has to feed and support world’s largest population. No other countries than China and India have to take its lead.

Besides, China itself can take a lead along with the United States, EU and other major powers on creating global regime against terrorism, water, and food shortages, cyber crime followed by joint and collective investment on advanced technology.

China has grown out of existing international order and therefore China cannot stand outright against the international regime regulated more or less by the UN Agencies, IMF, World Bank and WTOs. But, China can claim more and substantial roles in these bodies while for example speaking for the countries like India, Germany, Japan, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa for permanent membership in UN Security Council. This can help China gain a global leadership.

Finally yet importantly, a government directly elected by the people, accountable to them through defined political procedures, independent judiciary, free press, Human Rights, individual freedom and social justice are not mere western values; they are human values and any political system does have no privilege to define them to suit their political interests. System of governance can be developed or based on tradition and culture of any particular country but human values as mentioned above must rule and guide them. If China’s long awaited political reforms is able to absorb those values and develop a political system rooted in its tens of thousands years of history and political culture, the world may welcome China and give way to lead them unabetted.

The post How Can China Assure Its Peaceful Rise – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Remembering Srebrenica, 1995 – OpEd

$
0
0

Every year in July, the memories of the Srebrenica Massacre swell anew and bring tears to not just Bosniaks but anyone who has even an ounce of humanity left in him/her. Years go by, debates keep happening, and we keep telling ourselves that humanity is not yet dead.

Remembering Srebrenica

Between 1992 and 1995, over 100,000 innocent civilians of Bosnia lost their lives. In the town of Srebrenica, nearly 8000 Muslims were massacred between July 11 and 13 in the year 1995.

Yes, Srebrenica was a protected UN Safe Area. There was a Dutch peacekeeping force stationed in the region and their job was to protect the refugees in and around Srebrenica. Needless to say, the peacekeepers failed.

This massacre, unarguably the worst one ever witnessed by Europe after the Second World War, was carried out by the Serbian terror forces under the command of General Ratko Mladic. The victims were shot and dumped in mass graves, thereby making identification very difficult. Thus far, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has identified nearly 6500 victims of the Srebrenica Massacre.

Certain videos have surfaced, which show the atrocities committed by Mladic’s men. Here is one such video (be warned: contains very graphic scenes of violence):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-UZJ67AKc

The Dutch peacekeeping forces too failed to impress. To quote General John Sheehan, the then NATO’s Supreme Commander:

“The case in point that I’m referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War Two.”

The events of Srebrenica were not riots. Nor were they a two-sided conflict. It was sheer genocide, as noted by both the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia as well as the International Court of Justice:

“By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general.

The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act.”

The Ghost of Genocide

The two main villains of the Srebrenica Genocide are still on trial in Hague: the former President of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, and the General of the army of the Republika Srpska, Ratko Mladic.

However, the hatred is still alive. During the course of the trial, Colonel Luka Dragicevic stated in his testimony that he had no remorse for the 1995 events, and he felt that “Serbians are genetically stronger, better, more beautiful and smarter” as compared to Bosnians.

Such blatant racism is just the tip of the iceberg. Karadzic’s daughter, Sonja Karadzic-Jovicevic, recently announced that she will run in the upcoming parliamentary elections of Republika Srpska in October this year. She openly denies allegations of genocide, questions the authority of The International Court in The Hague, and puts forth a sectarian ideology. It is also noteworthy that Radovan Karadzic is being viewed as a war hero (not a war criminal).

Furthermore, the Republika Srpska has granted over $1m from its government budget to an NGO (owned and operated by a Serbian lawyer named Stephen Karganovic) that intends to present a one-sided and false account of the Srebrenica Massacre.

Quite obviously, denial and perversion of history is an acceptable task for the Republika Srpska.

Appraisal

1995 is long gone, but the scars of the tragedy are still fresh. Serbian government aspires to join the EU. However, it needs to realize that its agenda of “intended indifference” towards crimes of yesterday is not the right road to be on.

People in Republika Srpska need to realize that their current leaders — be it the previous President Radovan Karadzic, his daughter Sonja Karadzic-Jovicevic, or the current President Milorad Dodik — need to ousted at the earliest. Nationalism is acceptable, but ultranationalism serves no fruitful purpose.

On the other hand, the Bosniaks too need to develop a conscious willingness to work together. Having suffered the ill-effects of war and witnessed a full-fledged genocide, most Bosniaks are undergoing a sort of existential crisis. Absence of violence does not mean absence of fear, after all. As such, the Bosniaks need to realize that their struggle for justice is far from over. They need to find the strength to aspire for a glorious future.

The horrid flashbacks of 1995 can fade only when there is hope for regional cooperation and harmony. Until then, even if The Hague Court were to pronounce its verdict and punish the culprits, the sad episodes of Srebrenica will linger on in memory.

About the author: Sufyan bin Uzayr is the author of “Sufism: A Brief History”. He writes for several print and online publications, and regularly blogs about issues of contemporary relevance atPolitical Periscope (www.politicalperiscope.com). You can also connect with him usingFacebook (http://facebook.com/sufyanism) orGoogle+ (https://plus.google.com/+SufyanbinUzayr?rel=author) or email him at sufyan@politicalperiscope.com

The post Remembering Srebrenica, 1995 – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Israel’s Dissenting Voices Get Lost In The War Echo Chamber – OpEd

$
0
0

For several days now, some of my neighbours have suggested that the time has come to “destroy them”- meaning either Hamas or Palestinians – “once and for all”. The rockets being fired from Gaza clearly do have the effect of raising the level of hysteria within Israel.

However, not only have the dozens of Grads been fermenting the spirit of war – government ministers, members of Knesset and leading media commentators have also been consistently pouring oil onto the fire. Indeed, it seems the only vocal criticism against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that he is too soft on the Palestinians. There is no public debate about the necessity of another war, but only about how punitive Israel should be.

Immediately following the discovery of the three Jewish teenagers’ bodies on June 30, Israel’s security cabinet met. Although it was, by then, common knowledge that the higher echelons had known the boys were dead even as they launched a massive military operation in the West Bank two weeks earlier -  killing seventeen Palestinian civilians and arresting more than 500, including a number of Hamas members who had been released in the Shalit swap – the cabinet allegedly convened to discuss how Israel should respond to the boys’ death.

‘Not striking hard enough’

Reportedly, the political and security leadership supported a “more moderate response,” while the far-right wing economy minister and the head of the Jewish Home Party, Naftali Bennett, demanded a much harsher reaction. A few days later, Bennett complained that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is undermining Israel’s deterrence”; adding that “restraint following the execution of three children is a sign of weakness”. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman went so far so to dismantle the Likud-Beiteinu unity, blaming Netanyahu for “not striking Hamas hard enough”.

In a similar vein, several prominent columnists urged Netanyahu to take a more belligerent stand.  Shaul Rosenfeld noted that Israel’s restraint is outrageous and shameful. In an opinion piece for the popular news site Ynet he wrote: “‘The regional power Israel has fallen to its knees to beg the murderous terrorist organisation to graciously give it some peace and quiet.”

The public debate today is not whether or not to stop the air strikes but rather whether or not to deploy ground forces. In an opinion column, Channel 2′s military correspondent Ronnie Daniel claimed that only “a ground operation will extract a heavy enough price from Hamas” in order to ensure a longer period of peace for Israel. The following day Channel 2′s anchor pondered: “We wanted Hamas to fall on its knees and so far this has not happened”; and Daniel responded, “So far it’s not happening, and the conclusion, in my opinion, is that it has not received enough.”

Moreover, the editor-in-chief of the most widely circulated daily newspaper Israel Hayom, published an opinion article entitled “Bring the Gaza Strip back to the Stone Age.” He immediately explained that he did not mean that Israel should reduce all of the houses in Gaza to rubble but rather to “destroy the weapon arsenal Hamas has accumulated over the past ten years. To pull out the snake’s teeth. To leave them without missiles, with stones at the most. And this can only be done in or through an extensive ground operation.”

While not all commentators were as blatant, the Israeli press has, overall, mobilised itself in the name of the national hysteria.  Most commentators for Haaretz, Yediot Ahronot, Ynet, and Ma’ariv concur that the current round of fighting was forced on Netanyahu and are also in general agreement in insisting that it is impossible to eradicate Hamas without recapturing the Gaza Strip, but note that at this stage the government is not interested in doing so.

A number of Likud members also object to a ground operation. Knesset Member Moshe Feiglin stated that “Our enemy is not only Hamas but the entire population that supports it and raises three fingers with pride while handing out candy as our sons are killed,” he wrote, exclaiming: “We should not send a single soldier to Gaza! We do not even need to bomb houses and empty areas! We should simply deny them electricity, water, food and medicine until they fall on their knees.”

Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon, who has over 105,000 followers on his Facebook page, posted a poster of an aerial photo of Gaza showing a rocket being launched towards Israel. On the poster he wrote: “A billion and a half shekels debt to the electricity company; more than 360 rockets have been fired towards Israel; 0 rationale in transferring electricity and fuel to Hamas.” Close to 33,000 people liked the poster, 6,700 shared it, and 1,200 commented on it, claiming, for example, “it is the leader head of your party [Netanyahu] who is to blame.”

This is the atmosphere produced by the right wing government and the media, but what, one might ask, has been the reaction of the political parties sitting in the opposition?

Responding to a question posed by Channel 2′s anchor, Labor leader and the head of the opposition Yitschak Herzog said: “…I think Israeli restraint has run its course and it’s time to execute the blow that will restore the calm…” The anchor pressed Herzog, asking whether he supports a ground operation, but Herzog was unwilling to provide a direct response. Similarly, former Labor leader Shelly Yachimovitch, also expressed support for the military operation, adding that while she is one Netanyahu’s harshest critics “it is impossible not to appreciate his responsible and restrained conduct in this crisis.”

The leader of the liberal Meretz Party publically demanded an end to the operation, but in a conversation with Netanyahu she was quoted as saying that “You have to punish Hamas, but also strive for a diplomatic move, with the aid of the Egyptians, that will produce a cease-fire.”

The only exceptions to this warmongering have been the usual suspects, people like Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and Uri Misgav from Ha’aretz who have harshly condemned the current round of violence. The voices of the Palestinian members of Knesset have not been heard in the Israeli media for the past several days, because, I suspect, they are adamantly against this cycle of violence and the demos does not really want to hear them.

Finally, the left has organised several protests, fifty people here a hundred people there, and, while often this is how resistance begins, it is not clear how within the current atmosphere these sober voices will amount to anything. It is a time of deep despair for all those who envision a different and brighter future for this land.

First published in Al-Jazeera. 

Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation.

The post Israel’s Dissenting Voices Get Lost In The War Echo Chamber – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Urban Outfitters Removes Lord Ganesha Duvet Cover After Hindus Protest

$
0
0

Urban Outfitters (UO), a publicly traded retail company headquartered in Philadelphia (USA) which offers a variety of lifestyle merchandise, has removed Lord Ganesha Duvet Cover from its website after Hindus protested calling it inappropriate.

Lord Ganesha Duvet Cover, an “Online Only” item, did not show up after search on UO website today.

DHindu statesman Rajan Zed, who spearheaded the protest, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, thanked UO for understanding the concerns of Hindu community, which thought Lord Ganesha’s image on duvet cover was highly inappropriate and trivializing of highly revered Hindu deity.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, said that an official apology from UO to the upset Hindu community was still due as it was their second incident trivializing Lord Ganesha. First was socks carrying Lord Ganesha’s image, which were removed in December last. Moreover, it was sad that it took UO 12 days to act after they were informed, Zed added.

Rajan Zed suggested UO and other corporations worldwide to send their senior executives for training in religious and cultural sensitivity so that they had an understanding of the feelings of customers and communities when creating new products or launching advertising campaigns.

Zed had earlier said that Lord Ganesha was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be slept upon. Inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees.

Hinduism was the oldest and third largest religion of the world with about one billion adherents and a rich philosophical thought and it should not be taken lightly. Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed had argued.

Zed had also pointed out that such trivialization of Lord Ganesha was disturbing to the Hindus world over. Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith was something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers, Zed noted.

Duvet cover which Hindu devotees were finding objectionable was priced at $129.00-$169.00 on the UO website, which described it as “UO Exclusive” and “topped with a standout illustration by the talented Valentina Ramos”.

UO, Inc. offers merchandise in Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Free People, Terrain and BHLDN brands through stores in USA, Canada, and Europe; besides garden center, catalogs, websites and wholesale. It boasts of its “established ability to understand our customers and connect with them on an emotional level” and calls its brands “both compelling and distinct”. Richard A. Hayne and Tedford Marlow are President of UO, Inc., and Chief Executive Officer of UO Group respectively.

In Hinduism, Lord Ganesha is worshipped as god of wisdom and remover of obstacles and is invoked before the beginning of any major undertaking.

The post Urban Outfitters Removes Lord Ganesha Duvet Cover After Hindus Protest appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Israel And Saudi Arabia: Forging Ties On Quicksand – Analysis

$
0
0

Long gone are the days when Saudi Arabia was the only Arab country that had visa rules to bar Jews from entering the kingdom and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal gave visiting US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger the Protocols of Zion, a 19th century anti-Semitic tract, as a gift. Saudi Arabia still declines to forge official ties with Israel as long as it refuses to withdraw from territories it conquered during the 1967 war. But perceptions of common threats have expanded long-standing unofficial ties to the point that both the kingdom and Israel feel less constrained in publicly acknowledging their contacts and signalling a lowering of the walls that divide them.

As states, Saudi Arabia and Israel share few, if any common values, despite some cultural values that are common to Wahhabism, the austere form of Islam adopted by the kingdom, and ultra-orthodox Jews. But they increasingly have common interests despite Israel’s current assault on Gaza in an attempt to crush the Islamist Hamas militia, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both states perceive Iran, particularly an Iran that is a nuclear power, as an existential threat; both also share a determination to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Al Qaeda-inspired groups and defend as much of the political status quo in the region as possible against change that threatens to replace autocratic regimes with ones dominated by Islamist militants.

Breaching secrecy

A series of recent events indicate that those common interests have made Saudi Arabia, which projects itself as a the leader of the Arab world, less sensitive about going public about relations with Israel in the absence of a settlement of the Palestinian problem. As a result, Israel, which has long accommodated a Saudi need for secrecy, is also becoming more public about cooperation between the two states.

“Everything is underground, nothing is public. But our security cooperation with Egypt and the Gulf states is unique,” said General Amos Gilad, director of the Israeli defence ministry’s policy and political-military relations department “This is the best period of security and diplomatic relations with the Arab. Relations with Egypt have improved dramatically” since last year’s military coup against Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother.

Describing Israel’s security border with Jordan, the only Arab state alongside Egypt to have signed a peace treaty with Israel, as the border between Jordan and Iraq, Gilad went on to say: “The Gulf and Jordan are happy that we belong to an unofficial alliance. The Arabs will never accept this publicly but they are clever enough to promote common ground.”

Despite repeated Saudi denials of any links to Israel and official adherence to an Arab boycott of anything Israeli, the kingdom has signalled a relationship in recent weeks with an encounter in Brussels between former intelligence chiefs of the two countries and the first time a Saudi publisher has published an Arabic translation of a book by an Israeli academic.

Step by step

The exchange in late May between Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, a full brother of Foreign Minister Prince Saud who headed Saudi intelligence for 24 years, and General Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, constituted the most high profile Saudi acknowledgement of relations. Saudis and Israelis have met before in public but Prince Turki went out of his way this time to promote a 2002 Saudi-sponsored peace plan that offers Arab recognition of the Jewish state in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory and a solution for the Palestinians as a step-by-step process rather than a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

The exchange followed the controversial publishing of an Arabic translation of ‘Saudi Arabia and the New Strategic Landscape’ by Joshua Teitelbaum, a professor at Bar Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. While Saudi newspapers have long published columns by left-wing, dovish Israeli writers opposed to their government’s policy, Teitelbaum’s book was the first by a mainstream Israeli writer published by a Saudi publisher.

The openings notwithstanding, Israelis and Saudis appear to differ in their expectations of how far closer relations can go. Prince Turki signalled in Brussels that he saw cooperation between the two states on specific issues as a first step towards a solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That was a far cry from Gilad’s tone who compared Israel’s improved ties to conservative Arab states as “good weather” and cautioned that one should not forget that “clouds will come” in a region in which states are collapsing, tribes dominate and Israeli military superiority is its only guarantee.

This article was published at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies as Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, and reprinted with permission.

The post Israel And Saudi Arabia: Forging Ties On Quicksand – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Australia – Afghanistan: Unconventional Steps Can Change Evil To Good – OpEd

$
0
0

By Sabir Siddiqi

Australia has given more than $2 billion (an average of $180 million per year) to Afghanistan in the past 12 years, following the collapse of Taliban government in 2001. This amount is separate from hundreds of millions of dollars the country has spent to maintain the presence of her troops in Afghanistan. Also, around 40 Australian soldiers have lost their lives on Afghanistan’s soil and 261 Australian soldiers have been seriously wounded since the first arrival of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan along with other NATO forces in 2001.

Finally, after 12 years of being in the front line of the battle against Taliban and terrorists, the last episode of Australia’s post-Taliban involvement was the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan at the end of 2013. The withdrawal was followed by a decrease in Australian aid to Afghanistan.

Is the mission accomplished? Was the sudden and rushed exit followed by a cut in aid justifiable? Was this all that should or could be done? Hasn’t Australia underestimated the risk of leaving Afghanistan in the hands of terrorism? Has the Australian presence in Afghanistan been a learning journey and, if yes, what are the lessons learned? How much do Australians and people in Afghanistan know about what the Australian governments has been doing in Afghanistan? Will Afghans stop coming in boats to Australia anymore?

We can say this with confidence the answer for most of these questions, if not for all of them, is negative.

Fixing the errors and moving towards a more positive situation requires the Australian government to take some unprecedented steps.

Firstly, it would be better if the Australian government provides Australians with a more transparent snapshot of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan and gives a clearer picture regarding where and how their money is spent in that country and what has been the immediate and long-term impact.

The Australian public needs to know more than the scary headlines about bombings and suicide attacks. They, for example, need to understand that the whole country is not insecure; the insecurity that impedes development and investment exists only in some provinces.

Surprisingly, with the current level of understanding among the Australian public about Afghanistan, many of them suggest that it is for the best interest of Australia to stay ‘effectively’ engaged in Afghanistan believing that if terrorism networks regain control of Afghanistan, then they will target both Afghans as well as all those who had any sort of presence or involvement in the country.

Secondly, it would be wise if the Australian government makes Afghans more aware about Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan in order to improve Afghan’s perceptions of Australia, its involvement in the Afghan war.

Thirdly, it would be wiser and less costly for the Australian government to address the root causes of the migration problem though some initiatives on Afghan soil and reach Afghan migrants before they jump on the boat. Portraying sea trips to Australia as a death journey is not an effective way to reduce or stop boat arrivals from Afghanistan and curbing human smuggling networks that facilitate such arrival in exchange for $20,000 to $35,000. It is better to address the migrant issue through opening processing centers in nearby countries to deal with asylum cases and creating employment opportunities to stop economic migrants from paying thousands to people smugglers to reach Australia by boat.

Fourthly, it would be best if Australia encourages and funds more Australian-led studies to explore the investment opportunities in Afghanistan. There are many opportunities in peaceful and secure parts of the country. Providing a hope-generating image of Afghanistan would encourage Australian companies and the private sector to explore investment opportunities in secure areas (north, south-west and central regions), particularly if they find that other companies (such as China Metallurgical Group (MCC)’s who have invested $3 billion in Logar province) have already done it.

Finally, it would be in both countries’ best interest to use Afghan communities in Australia to raise awareness about Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. Underestimating the role of Afghan-Australians and Afghans living in Australia could be a strategic error. The Afghan diaspora communities maintain strong ties with their homeland and can provide significant help in raising awareness about realities in Afghanistan as well as Australia’s mission and involvement in Afghanistan.

Australia has the opportunity to be the first to prove that taking an unconventional step can change evil to good and protect the investment made in Afghanistan from being a sunk cost.


Sabir Siddiqi is a graduate of the University of Sydney and a former senior advisor to the anticorruption agency in Afghanistan.

The post Australia – Afghanistan: Unconventional Steps Can Change Evil To Good – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Israel’s Attacks Against The Population Of The Gaza Strip – OpEd

$
0
0

The international media outlets speak of a new Middle Eastern war between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas organization, which rules a tiny strip of Palestine adjacent the Mediterranean Sea that resembles rather a large open-air prison than a state-like entity. Are we really witnesses of a “war” or an attack by a brutal colonial regime against a defenseless and helpless community of people in the Middle East? In order to provide its criminal operations with a veneer of legitimacy, the Israeli government is using war terminology.

According to international law, an enemy can be destroyed and killed according to certain principles that are codified in the Geneva Convention of 1949. The State of Israel has ratified these conventions in 1951 but did not ratify the first and the second protocol. Palestine as a non sovereign state is not party to international agreements in general and the Geneva Convention of 1949 in particular. After it had been granted observer status by the General Assembly of the United Nations it applied in 2009 to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague but its application was rejected by the ICC in 2012.

The establishment of the so-called Palestinian Authority has not relieved Israel from its international responsibility for the welfare of the people under occupation. Under the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), the occupying power bears a general responsibility for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has “effective control” over the territory in question. A certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. By enclosing the Gaza Strip and preventing its inhabitants to enter and exit from that area, Israel exercises „effective control“ over this area.

The attack against the population of the occupied Gaza Strip by the Israeli occupiers disregards both norms of humanitarian law and norms of human rights that it must respect towards the captive population of Gaza. Such an attack does not constitute war but gross violations of human rights and humanitarian norms, which may amount to crimes against humanity under customary law.

The ineffectual rocket attacks by Hamas against Israeli targets are militarily irrelevant and do not transform the relationship between the captive population of Gaza and the Israeli State into an international conflict or war. Many well-meaning observers have rightly pointed out the huge discrepancy between the hapless rocket attacks by Hamas and the massively deadly Israeli bombings of Gaza, often disregarded by Western media. Such focus obfuscates the responsibility of Israel under international law towards the population of Gaza and tends to limit Israel’s breaches to that of using excessive force.

Within a five year period, Israel has launched the third devastating attack on the ruling Hamas government and on the population of the Gaza Strip without any convincing results. Israel’s political leadership pretends that it wants to destroy the “terrorist” infrastructure. But is this really the case? Can’t Hamas be seen as an implied ally of Israel? The Israeli government needs Hamas as a pretext not to seek peace. This could be seen immediately after Fatah and Hamas formed a unity government. Netanyahu right away started demonizing Hamas but to no avail. This time the Obama administration and the European Union did not fall in line with his extremist stance and kept on working with the Palestinians. What Netanyahu wishes, however, is to demoralize the population of Gaza and prod it to acts of despair against Hamas.

According to Israel’s defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, the next agreement with Hamas will be signed exclusively on Israeli terms. This attitude shows, however, the political stubbornness of some Israeli politicians in regard to peace with the Palestinians. The rejectionism of the political and military ruling elite has been a key element of all Israeli governments since the proclamation of the State of Israel.

When this massacre of the population of Gaza will be over, “peace talks” must be resumed to solve the Middle Eastern problem. In order to achieve a comprehensive arrangement, the partners have to tackle not only the exclusivist and expansionist Zionist ideology, but also some teachings of Judaism. The late Israel Shahak has shown in his groundbreaking book “Jewish History, Jewish Religion. The Weight of Three Thousand Years” (Pluto Press 1994; fourth edition 2008), that the latent racism within Israeli society does not derive alone from Zionism but is inherent in some teachings of Judaism. Although this raises politically awkward questions, they need to be addressed anyway.

By the way: Don’t the US and its Western allies bear responsibility for the behavior of a jingoistic Israeli leadership that pretends to belong to a so-called community of shared values? If this holds true, shouldn’t one exclude the alleged partner, before losing the last remaining of his own credibility?

The post Israel’s Attacks Against The Population Of The Gaza Strip – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Australia Drying Caused By Greenhouse Gases

$
0
0

NOAA scientists have developed a new high-resolution climate model that shows southwestern Australia’s long-term decline in fall and winter rainfall is caused by increases in manmade greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion, according to research published today in Nature Geoscience.

“This new high-resolution climate model is able to simulate regional-scale precipitation with considerably improved accuracy compared to previous generation models,” said Tom Delworth, a research scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., who helped develop the new model and is co-author of the paper. “This model is a major step forward in our effort to improve the prediction of regional climate change, particularly involving water resources.”

NOAA researchers conducted several climate simulations using this global climate model to study long-term changes in rainfall in various regions across the globe. One of the most striking signals of change emerged over Australia, where a long-term decline in fall and winter rainfall has been observed over parts of southern Australia. Simulating natural and manmade climate drivers, scientists showed that the decline in rainfall is primarily a response to manmade increases in greenhouse gases as well as a thinning of the ozone caused by manmade aerosol emissions. Several natural causes were tested with the model, including volcano eruptions and changes in the sun’s radiation. But none of these natural climate drivers reproduced the long-term observed drying, indicating this trend is due to human activity.

Southern Australia’s decline in rainfall began around 1970 and has increased over the last four decades. The model projects a continued decline in winter rainfall throughout the rest of the 21st century, with significant implications for regional water resources. The drying is most severe over southwest Australia where the model forecasts a 40 percent decline in average rainfall by the late 21st century.

“Predicting potential future changes in water resources, including drought, are an immense societal challenge,” said Delworth. “This new climate model will help us more accurately and quickly provide resource planners with environmental intelligence at the regional level. The study of Australian drought helps to validate this new model, and thus builds confidence in this model for ongoing studies of North American drought.”

The post Australia Drying Caused By Greenhouse Gases appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Brazil Lost The World Cup, So What? – OpEd

$
0
0

By Juliana Moraes-Pinheiro

The largest country in Latin America, most commonly known for its vibrant soccer, left 200 million citizens shocked after its loss in Tuesday’s match against Germany in the World Cup’s semifinal. There were seven goals scored by the Germans against the Brazilians’ one goal. Yes, it was a historical World Cup loss. But the question is: So what? Should Brazil continue to focus on marketing its soccer culture, or should the country begin to showcase its numerous other accomplishments? The time has come for Brazil to focus on better moves is now, and I do not mean soccer moves. The Brazilian citizenry ought to stop feeling ashamed every time the Seleção loses a World Cup.

Every four years when the World Cup is launched, staunch Brazilian fans proudly and publicly display their support for their nation. These also happen to be the same people who complain about everything; yet, suddenly they fill their hearts with pride, boasting how honored they are to be Brazilian. Perhaps these people just choose to focus on what their country is best known for—soccer—when the World Cup comes around. However, the absurdity of it all is that whenever Brazil loses, the bitter taste of reality comes surging back to the life of these fair-weather Brazilian futbol fans in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, this time the taste is even more bitter than ever—the “humiliating score” against Germany came in the midst of the most expensive World Cup in history. On Tuesday, the love left and the hate came back. Most Brazilians cried and screamed, while others thought about the expenses of the games, burned the national flag, and returned to heavy protesting. [1]

There is no reason for Brazil to only be known for its soccer, carnaval, and attractive women. Brazil has much more relevant accomplishments to share with the world. For instance, Brazil has extremely advanced engineering. Case in point is the creation of the exoskeleton—a mechanism engineered to enable the paralyzed to walk—by Brazilian neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis. [2] The invention was hardly mentioned during the opening ceremony of the World Cup. Brazil also has remarkable auto and aircraft industries, and the Brazilian corporation, Embraer, is one of the world’s main aircraft manufacturers for both civilian and military planes. [3]

Additionally, Brazil is known for its high standards of its private health sector, particularly as the country is one of the world’s most popular locations for plastic surgery. Brazil also has some of the best universities in Latin America. Several of the nation’s higher-level education institutions, such as the University of São Paulo (USP), University of Campinas (UniCamp), and the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) are world-renowned, USP being ranked in the 85th position. [4]

Most importantly, the 2014 World Cup has surpassed global expectations and has disproved the critics who feared that if Brazil hosted the event, it would be a fiasco. Since the inauguration of the Cup, this global sporting event has been a well-organized tournament and has been complimented by even the most critical of journalists. Researcher Dàvid Ranc from the Football Research in an Enlarged Europe (FREE), stated that Brazil’s World Cup has been better organized than the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. He also criticized the world’s misconceptions regarding events taking place in the Global South, arguing that the qualms of the developed world with regard to the games reflect xenophobic thinking. [5]

Though these accomplishments rightly make Brazilians proud of their nation, there are number of Brazilian government policies that infuriate the populace and drag millions into the streets for generally non-violent protests. The 2014 World Cup has been the most expensive in the Fédération Internationale de Football Association’s (FIFA) history. Brazil spent approximately 12 billion USD to build and renovate stadiums and airports across the country. [6] Consequently these lavish expenditures did not sit well among the Brazilians leading many of them to begin protesting, primarily due to the increase of the bus fare in São Paulo in June 2013. They also demanded better public hospitals and schools. The absurd investment in the World Cup is exactly what Brazil did not need while the public sector is in such decay. Brazilians are now asking who will pay the exorbitant bill for the games. For many, the loss against Germany is just one more reason to continue the protests that started in 2013.

Despite Brazil already having one of the highest tax rates in the world, the country’s public sector is not thriving, particularly in the social and health areas. Brazil is struggling in these sectors because of high rates of corruption, unequal income distribution and gross injustice toward the poor. Sadly and unsurprisingly, politicians benefit the most from tax income, not the general public. This dynamic alone justifies the protestors, who just want a more equitable structure for their nation and its citizens.

After Brazil’s loss in the World Cup, the protests were taken to a new level as protestors altered their peaceful behavior to a more dramatic one, burning metropolitan buses and the national flag . The Brazilian people deserve to be heard and the public sector problems are overdue to be solved. Most of the country’s violence comes from the state via the military police, causing some journalists from the opposition to argue that some sort of dictatorship is back. On the other hand, government supporters expect President Dilma Rousseff to do more for the people, as she is a former protestor herself; while others fear that all the fuss will just end up “in samba,” meaning that nothing will come of these protests. Unfortunately, the truth is that not much is actually being done in favor of the population.

With the presidential elections approaching in October, it seems plausible to visualize a major and positive resolution to appease the protesters. Some critics state nothing will change regardless of who wins the election. Renato Janine Ribeiro, a professor of Philosophy at the University of São Paulo, argues that Brazil is currently in its fourth stage of its democratic agenda. The first three stages occurred when Brazil transitioned from the end of the military dictatorship in 1985, then saw a decline in inflation during the early 1990’s, and finally began an agenda for social inclusion under President Lula by early 2000’s. According to Professor Ribeiro, Brazil still needs to improve its social agenda of even stronger social inclusion policies. However, he believes that this fourth agenda, which is the improvement of public services, is happening now and looks promising since the population does not appear willing to stop their demands. [7] Ribeiro also observes that, in order to obtain substantial change, Brazil needs more than a popular outcry; it needs technical capacity from the government. Although he states that the country is on the right track, Ribeiro says there is still much to be done before Brazil can fully enter the fourth agenda of democracy.

Brazil’s success as a World Cup host should help its international image, but again I ask: so what? Why should the Brazilian people care about their country’s image in the world when it still has so many domestic problems to be solved? Brazilians are gradually turning their backs on the manipulative media and focusing on the “raw” situation of their nation. Burning the national flag demonstrates the extension of the people’s fury and immense desire for change – a desire to have the “country of the future” right now. The time to change is now, not on “Brazilian time,” of being thirty minutes late or leaving decisions to the last minute and pull the “Brazilian way” as a means to solve everything. Burning their country’s flag does not mean that Brazilians do not love their nation – its population is simply appealing for positive changes and that and they deserve to have them sooner rather than later.

Juliana Moraes-Pinheiro, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

References:

[1] de Viana, Rodolfo. “Brasil x Alemanha: Torcedores queimam bandeira do Brasil na Vila Madalena, em São Paulo” Brazil Post – The Huffington Post, July 8,2014, accessed July 9, 2014.http://www.brasilpost.com.br/2014/07/08/bandeira-vila-madalena_n_5568515.html?utm_hp_ref=brazil

[2] Walk Again Project, “World Cup 2014: First kick made by mind-controlled exoskeleton” CBS NEWS. June 12TH 2014. Accessed July 9TH 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-cup-2014-first-kick-made-by-mind-controlled-exoskeleton/

[3] EMBRAER – For the Journey – Accessed July 9th 2014. http://www.com/en-US/ConhecaEmbraer/EmbraerNumeros/Pages/Home.aspx

[4] Meyer, Cardy. “As Melhores Universidades do Brasil” Webometrics. Accessed July 8, 2014. http://www.profcardy.com/vestibular/top100br.php

[5] Ranc, Dàvid. “The World Cup 2014 in Brazil: Better Organised Than the Olympics in London 2012?” Football Research in Enlarged Europe, June 26, 2014, accessed July 8, 2014.http://www.free-project.eu/Blog/post/the-world-cup-2014-in-brazil-better-organised-than-the-olympics-in-london-2012-1928.htm

[6] Eisenhammer, Stephen. “Mega-events may get less ambitious as Brazil counts World Cup costs” Reuters. June 3th 2014. Accessed July 9th 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/13/us-brazil-worldcup-megaevents-analysis-idUSKBN0EO0CJ20140613

[7] Talarico, Bruna. “Brasil está diante da agenda da vida, da liberdade’, defende filósofo da USP”. Ultimo Segundo. June 12th 2014. Accessed July 9th 2014. http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/politica/2014-06-22/brasil-esta-diante-da-agenda-da-vida-da-liberdade-defende-filosofo-da-usp.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The post Brazil Lost The World Cup, So What? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Would ISIS’s Pivot To The East Affect South Asia’s Regional Security? – Analysis

$
0
0

This article addresses the potential threats posed by ISIS trans-regionally to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and India (as well as China) through several scenarios and questioning the likelihood of an ISIS East-pivot.

By Tamer Badawi

Maliki’s strategy of subjugating Sunnis in Iraq that boosted ISIS’ moves in Iraq could have far-reaching implications beyond the Middle East, which is already witnessing a process of re-configuration aimed at remapping the region and altering Sykes–Picot boundaries.

ISIS’s robust expansion in Iraq is raising concerns over a similar trans-regional scenario. Afghanistan, a country that is threatened by a looming crisis of legitimacy over the alleged fraud in the presidential elections, could be vulnerable to a spillover from Iraq.

Although Afghani Taliban is ideologically different from ISIS, gaps could be de facto bridged if the situation proved to be suitable for Afghani Taliban to make strategic inroads on the ground. However, while until the present, the current moment Afghani Taliban has not shown any signs of allegiance to ISIS in this context. Lately, it has been reported that Afghani Taliban has been warning ISIS of extremism.

Nevertheless, it seems that ISIS’s psychological boost has reached Pakistan, a notorious safe haven for Islamic militants. It was reported that Tehreek-e-Khilafat, an Islamist militant group in Pakistan (Operating under the umbrella of TTP) has pledged its allegiance to ISIS. The group declared it will raise the flag of ISIS above South Asia and Khurasan (comprising parts of Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan).

These developments are definitely raising Islamabad’s concerns. The Pakistani military has been carrying out an operation against Tehrek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the North Waziristan Tribal Agency after the negotiations between the state and the militants reached a deadlock. If the TTP follows its offshoot Tehreek-e-Khilafat in joining ISIS, it will be deemed as a menacing precedent not only to Pakistan, but also to Iran and India.

According to one of the published reports, analysts assert that there are proper grounds for ISIS’s influence in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions, pointing to the fact that 234 militant groups already operate in Pakistan, about 60 of which seem eager to join ISIS.

Nonetheless, if speculations of Islamabad’s Saudi-induced support for armed opposition in Syria turns out to be correct, Pakistan would be conducting inconsistent policies towards Islamic militancy and ipso facto playing with its own security. However, it’s unclear if Pakistani support would be a byproduct of canny calculations or merely in response to Saudi pressure or some sort of bargain.

In this context, Tehran has its own concerns if the situation develops in this direction. Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province in the South East has been vulnerable to surging insurgency inflamed by the complex interplay between Sunni radicalism and ethno-nationalist factors. The Baluchi militants cross the Iranian-Pakistani border despite surveillance, which means that adverse developments in Pakistan and especially in its Baluchi province could threaten Iran’s security from the perspective of the Iranian establishment.

Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province has been facing discriminatory policies and uneven distribution of petrodollars by the central government in Tehran. In the underdeveloped province, which is suffering under a hard-pressed economy, unemployment reached 50%.

Also, internal developments in Pakistan could affect Iran potentially as Pakistan’s military is continuing its operation in Waziristan. As more people are fleeing the area to Karachi, demographic changes are likely to affect the sectarian situation between Sunni and Shiites in Pakistan and thus Iran. These changes could have touchable implications on Iran in the context of a region that is in a state of flux. Consequently as Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence rise in Pakistan, Iranian-Pakistani relations usually become tense.

India, a country that fought against Pakistan in a prolonged war, is also concerned by the Middle Eastern developments and their potential impact on its security. India is a country that contains 177 million Muslims, both Sunni and Shiites (15% of its population). An adverse sectarian situation in Iraq and Pakistan would probably instigate more sectarian problems among its Muslim population.

India’s security problem with Pakistan has been associated with Pakistan’s notorious “Strategic depth” strategy. During the 1990s Pakistan took its Afghan strategy to the extreme by incorporating the use of Afghan territory into its fighting plans against India and utilizing Afghan soil to train and launch militants fighting Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir.

Although Islamabad’s crackdown on the Islamic militants in Waziristan seems to be altering the old Pakistani strategy, Islamabad’s potential support for militants in Syria raises the following questions: Is India on Islamabad’s Middle Eastern agenda? Does its potential support for militants in Syria mean something to New Delhi?

Narendra Modi’s rise to power in India has made Indian Muslims apprehensive of further marginalization as he was allegedly involved in state-backed violence against Muslims or at least being accused of standing idle. This also raises the likelihood of resorting to militancy in the future if state marginalization and violence potentially increases (Bearing in mind the developments in Iraq).

Also China, despite its coercive statism and heavy handed policies towards its Muslims, it is not far from ISIS’s radical impact and the whole fragile scene. However, as Beijing’s influence is rising in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, the current situation could bring New Delhi and Beijing together to ensure regional security. Also, it is unclear how the ongoing developments will affect Indo-Pakistani relations.

ISIS rise has deep-seated implications trans-regionally to the extent of changing the existing security paradigms in the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia.

About the author:
Tamer Badawi is an Egyptian researcher and writer specializing in Iranian affairs. He regularly contributes to Aljazeera.net (Arabic) and publishes papers with Aljazeera Center for Studies.

The post Would ISIS’s Pivot To The East Affect South Asia’s Regional Security? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi Arabia: Alarming Rise In AIDS Cases

$
0
0

By Sultan Al-Sughair

There is a marked increase in the number of HIV (AIDS) patients by 19 percent annually, according to Mosa Hiaza’a, director of the Saudi Charity Association for AIDS Patients.

“The association has registered 630 HIV patients this year which is a hundred percent increase over last year,” Hiaza’a said quoting the latest statistics issued by the association in June 2014. He added that most of the patients were men.

He said that 2,500 patients live with their families and are in touch with the association which provides them with services and a variety of emotional or educational programs.

“The Association monitors the patients and learns about their lifestyles, families’ conditions and provides emotional and economic support which helps them to integrate with the community,” Hiaza’a said.

In addition, the association organizes home visits in order to encourage them and make them feel part of society.

The association further contributes with financial support to help patients get married. It has succeeded in helping 130 HIV patients to get married in the last five years.

The director said: “The number of healthy babies born to female AIDS patients reached 90 children.”

The women were registered with the Ministry of Health where they were put through some stringent medical tests. They were also given the necessary treatment to be able to have healthy babies free from AIDS, according to Hiaza’a.

The association is instrumental in helping patients to learn the value of patience and to adhere to Islamic principles through psychological rehabilitation programs.

The post Saudi Arabia: Alarming Rise In AIDS Cases appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Jack Straw: It Is Certainly Possible To Move From Position Of Hostility To Position Of Understanding – Interview

$
0
0

Jack Straw is not an unknown or unfamiliar politician to the Iranians. When the current President of Iran Hassan Rouhani was the country’s lead nuclear negotiator with the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany) under President Mohammad Khatami, Jack Straw traveled to Iran several times as the British Foreign Secretary and conferred with him on a number of occasions.

Straw is a veteran politician who has experienced working at the different administrative and law-making levels in the British politics. From 1987 to 1992, he was the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science and for the next two years, he served as the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. From May 1997 until June 2001, he was the British Home Secretary and from 2001 until 2006, he worked as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under Prime Minister Tony Blair. In this capacity, he represented Britain in the nuclear negotiations with Iran for three years. He was the Leader of the House of Commons for a short period between May 2006 and June 2007. Currently, he is a Member of Parliament for Blackburn, a position he has held since 1979.

He is one of the three individuals to have served in the British Cabinet continuously under the Labor government from 1997 to 2010. For three years, he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, the second highest-ranking of the Great Officers of State after Lord High Steward.

Upon his return from Tehran, Jack Straw admitted in an interview with the BBC Radio 4’s Today program that Britain and the United States have historically had a “very malign” influence on Iran. He cited the two powers’ role in the 1953 coup d’etat that toppled the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, their sponsorship of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 8-year war against Iran and their policy of economic sanctions in the recent years.

Jack Straw accepted Iran Review’s request for an exclusive interview and responded to our questions on such crucial and important issues as the future of Iran-Britain relations, the possibility of the revitalization of the bilateral relations between the two countries, the ongoing nuclear talks between Iran and the six world powers, the role of President Hassan Rouhani in forging a comprehensive deal with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program and the West’s sanctions regime against Iran. What follows is the full text of the interview that was taped in early May.

Q: You’ve noted in your interviews and articles that the United States and Britain have historically had a malign influence over Iran and played a destructive role against the progress of the Iranian society as manifested in the U.S., UK-engineered 1953 coup, the installation of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, their support for Saddam Hussein during the 8-year war and the economic sanctions regime. Now, how is it possible for them to compensate the damages, make the ordinary Iranian citizens optimistic and hopeful about the future and lay the groundwork for a lasting reconciliation between Iran and the West?

A: My answer is as follows: I can’t change the history of the relationship and what has happened and had happened. What, however, I and many others in United Kingdom are able to do is to change the future relationship between the British people, the United Kingdom government, the Islamic Republic and ordinary Iranian citizens. And I think one way of doing that is by explaining better within the British society why there is such a suspicion, as you have mentioned. And that is because it is based on a historic experience. It’s not only a day back; it goes back to the World War I and then the events in 1953 coup that includes support for the Shah when he was obviously losing any popular backing, and then support for Iraqi regime during that terrible war. And I think Iranian people know the story about British-Iranian relations and that is the whole thing. One way to build understanding is to talk to people about the history. But there is another aspect to this understanding here, which is about the distinctive nature of Iranians and the Persians, and before that, the Iranian civilization, and the work that is being done culturally between our British Museum and your national museum which has been really important to build up understanding. So the future is bright, and I believe that there is going to be a satisfactory outcome in Vienna, during the P5+1 negotiations with Iran and then moving forward to develop straight culture and parliamentary links. So that’s the background of it. We just hope and pray there will be a satisfactory outcome in P5+1 talks.

Q: Following the election of Dr. Hassan Rouhani as the President of Iran, Iran and Britain expressed their willingness to renew the ties and reestablish diplomatic relations. What’s your prediction for the future of Iran-UK relations? Do you believe that the British Embassy will recommence its operation in Tehran and continue providing consular services to the Iranians and the Britons who are seeking those services?

A: I think that it is a wide determination to seek improved Iran-UK relations. And there is an all- party group of members in parliament who are pushing for an early full operation of our embassy in Tehran and for the offering of consular services to both Iranians and the Britons. And we will continue to make representations at the foreign office for its progress and the reopening of the embassy as quickly as possible.

Q: Unquestionably, one of the best ways to settle the differences between Iran and the West would be to solve the nuclear controversy. The first step has been taken, and the Geneva agreement has brought Iran and the six world powers closer together. What’s your suggestion for the future talks? How is it possible to normalize Iran’s nuclear dossier forever and bring to an end nearly one decade of hostility and confrontation?

A: Well, I think the basis for a permanent settlement was set out in the Geneva declaration of 24th of November, 2013 and it’s about a recognition of Iran’s right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to the use of civil nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and at the same time satisfying the international community that these facilities cannot be used to develop a nuclear weapon capability. They call Tehran to move within this framework; one of the issues is about Iran’s uranium enrichment that I think the language, which was an agreed language in that Geneva accord, drives the way through. Regardless of any kind of ideology, whether the NPT allows for uranium enrichment or not, they accepted it. That would guarantee that uranium enrichment can take place in countries that sign the NPT for peaceful purposes and that will provide a way through. And a crucial part of it is that there should be satisfactory international safeguards inspections.

Q: Right. Just a few days after the signing of the Joint Plan of Action, or the Geneva interim accord on Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. officials rushed to claim that all options are still on the table with regards to Iran, implying that the United States is still considering the military option against Iran. Do you consider these implicit war threats helpful and productive while Iran and the six world powers are negotiating for a final agreement?

A: Well, the United States government is responsible for its policy decisions and I’m not responsible. And you are aware of my opinion which is that I’m against any military action on Iran and against uttering the threat of military action. I’ve never thought that it was helpful and actually they will not get in the way of an agreement.

Q: Well, it’s obviously true that the U. S. government is responsible for its own statements. But, don’t you think that the U.S. government is under some pressures by certain interest groups, multinational corporations or other lobbies to make war threats against Iran and impede the way of diplomacy and negotiations?

A: I don’t think there’s any pressure from multinational interest groups for the military action against Iran. And if you think about it, few multinational companies will endorse military action in that part of the Asia that would damage international trade and the world economy so significantly. There is another fact that there are still lobbies in the American government which are hostile to Iran, and that goes back to 35 years, in the light of what happened in the U.S. Embassy compound and the siege that took place, and that is a matter of fact. It’s also the case that the United States will never allow the world lobbies to influence its military power under any circumstances.

Q: Iran’s differences with the West are not simply confined to the nuclear issue. The two sides have had very deep ideological disputes which have to do with their worldviews and mindset. So, do you think there are chances that Iran and the West, especially the United States and Britain, can come to a lasting accord that marks the removal of all misunderstandings and elimination of all grievances, including on such issues as human rights, Palestine, etc.?

A: I think that it is certainly possible to move from the position of hostility to the position of understanding. And in the west, all countries have relations with other countries and some of them share the same ideological objectives. You can take the example of China; forty years ago, there was the deepest possible hostility between China and the United States. Actually, the hostility has gone now, but there remain deep ideological differences between the United States and China and in turn, in the West about China’s human rights record and so on and now [there are some] anxiety about the military power. But that has not precluded the cooperation between the United States and other Western countries and China, and they are accommodating each other. And Iran is an independent nation state that makes decisions which go back to the 1979 revolution, concerning the nature of its society and that’s a matter for Iran; it’s not a matter for people outside.

Q: Britain has always maintained close ties with Israel, and this probably makes any criticism of Israel a difficulty for the British politicians. But let’s be frank. Israel possesses up to 300 nuclear warheads, as confirmed by the Federation of American Scientists, and there has never been any investigation into its atomic arsenal or any sanctions against it, simply under the pretext that Israel is not an NPT signatory. Do you find this justification that Israel can possess nuclear weapons because it’s not an NPT member rational and fair?

A: There is wide support for the State of Israel in the United Kingdom and for Israel’s right to exist within the borders agreed by the United Nations; and, to be frank, some of the language used by your previous president did not help. However, there is increasing concern and criticism here in Britain and across Europe about the policies which the Israeli government operates in respect to the Occupied Territories and its treatment of non-Jewish people within Israel. As far as Israel’s nuclear arsenal is concerned, they do have one, and I don’t think it should be absent from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no matter the opposition, it should come within the NPT.

Q: As a high-ranking politician who has traveled to Iran several times, what’s your idea on the impact of the economic sanctions implemented by the United States and the European Union member states, including Britain, on the livelihoods of the ordinary citizens and the problems they’re facing in terms of their medical supplies, foodstuff and consumer goods? What’s your viewpoint on the humanitarian consequences of the sanctions?

A: The impression I received, and my point of view when I went to Iran is that the sanctions have had an adverse effect on the Iranian economy and on living standards of many ordinary Iranians. And obviously because of that, lifting the sanctions is an important objective of the Iranian government. And as you’ll be aware, medical supplies and foodstuff are supposed to be exempt from the sanctions regime. And I’ve been profoundly concerned that informal banking sanctions, particularly on the European banks by the United States, have prevented the foodstuff and medical supplies from getting into Iran which are supposed to be allowed by the sanctions regime. And I argued in the debates in the House of Commons that the United States’ trade with Iran in foodstuff and medical supplies has been increasing, but that of the United Kingdom has gone down sharply and I suggested in parliament that it’s partly a consequence but the way in practice the pressure on our banks has been greater than that on American-based banks. In my view, it is essential that the medical supplies and foodstuff are allowed. This is a different issue which you raised in your question. Some of them are essential, and some of them are not.

Q: And my final question; as a high-ranking British politician, what’s your prediction for the future of Iran-Britain relations under President Rouhani? Do you think that the external forces will allow the British government to get closer to Iran, approach Iran and maintain better and improved relations with Iran?

A: At present, I think it’s very difficult to predict the future. I know what I want, which is to see so significant improvement in the relations and a positive improvement. And I think there’s much to gain by helping Iran find its place in the world which is what it is. And I have no doubts that the Foreign Secretary wants to see an improvement in the relations.

This article was published by Iran Review and reprinted with permission.

The post Jack Straw: It Is Certainly Possible To Move From Position Of Hostility To Position Of Understanding – Interview appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Iraq’s Minorities Under Fire – Analysis

$
0
0

“The sound of the shelling was terrifying. In my street no-one was left. We were the last family to leave,” explained Janda, an Assyrian Christian from Iraq.

Her family of six fled the town of Qaragosh (also known as Bakhida and Hamdaniya) 30km east of Mosul, in northern Iraq, leaving their home in the middle of the night.

Travelling by car, they crossed into the capital of semi-autonomous Kurdistan, where they sought shelter in a sports hall in the mostly-Christian district of Ainkawa, in the Kurdish capital Erbil.

Janda is one of an estimated 10,000 Christians who fled from the Nineveh Plain – the region to the north and east of Mosul – to Erbil in the space of days in late June to escape militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and their clashes with Kurdish armed forces (Peshmerga). The aerial bombing campaign of the Iraqi Security Forces against ISIS has added to the concern.

“We are scared because we have heard rumours that ISIS decapitates people,” said Ammar, another Christian, who also left Qaragosh with his wife Iman and their two children, and found refuge in a cramped hall. “What happened to Christians in Syria – we expect the same fate,” he added.

In recent months reports have come out of Syria of churches being burned and Christian communities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam. While not all of them are true, they have stoked deep fear in the Iraqi Christian community.

So far there has been only minor damage to churches inside Mosul – a statue of the Virgin Mary removed and some black ISIS flags hung in place of crosses – though last week two nuns and three orphans went missing, feared kidnapped.

ISIS began its military offensive into northern Iraq in early June, seizing control of large sections of the provinces of Nineveh, Salaheddin and Kirkuk, to add to the swathes of Anbar Province it has held since the turn of the year. On 29 July, it declared the formation of an Islamic caliphate.

Although people of all faiths and ethnicities are among the 1.2 million people who have been displaced since January, rights groups warn that Christians – along with Iraq’s other religious minorities such as Shabak, Turkomans, and Yazidis – are particularly vulnerable to ISIS and also to any political and geographical splits in the country that may come about in the future.

“A clear pattern is emerging whereby ISIS is deliberately targeting Iraq’s minorities as well as others suspected of opposing the group, singling them out for detention and abduction,” explained Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s senior crisis response adviser, currently in northern Iraq.

“Every day I meet families desperate to find their sons, husbands and brothers who have been taken by ISIS groups and whose fate and whereabouts are unknown. Most do not want the names of their missing relatives mentioned because they fear for their safety.”

Letta Tayler, senior terrorism and counter-terrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), agreed that while atrocities were “happening on all sides”, minorities were being “singled out” by ISIS, which follows strict Sunni Muslim ideals.

“Religious minorities are doubly targeted; they are victims of both the general fighting and attacks because of their beliefs,” she said. “This has been a traditional pattern in Iraq, but during conflict it increases and these people are panicked. Right now we are seeing an acceleration of a slow-motion mass displacement of religious minorities,” she added.

Christians

These attacks are likely to increase a trend for Christian migration: Before the US-led invasion in 2003 there were an estimated 1.3 million Christians living in Iraq, but now there are believed to be as few as 300,000. This has been largely due to increased violence, including a 2010 attack on Our Lady of the Salvation Church in Baghdad, which killed 58 people.

Zaid Al-Ali, an Iraqi lawyer and the author of The Struggle for Iraq’s Future, said that although Christians were not part of Sunni versus Shia sectarianism, or necessarily targeted because of their religion, during the 2006-2007 surge in violence, when sectarian labels were attached to threats, extortion and kidnapping, Christians were particularly affected.

“Those targeted were largely people who had nowhere to turn, no tribal links, no connections in government and generally lived in more insecure neighbourhoods, and so a lot of the victims happened to be Christian,” he said. “Christians have always been targeted, they are the soft belly of Iraq. They don’t have the connections to the state like Muslims do and they don’t have anyone making a serious effort to look after them.”

In the past week, many of the Christians who fled to Ainkawa from Qaragosh have gone back home, according to church leaders. The bombs have stopped for now, but coupled with the difficult conditions due to the lack of water, fuel and electricity, there is also a deep uncertainty about what the future may hold, with ISIS showing no sign of giving up territory it has seized.

Bashar Matti Warda, the Archbishop of the Chaldean Catholic Diocese in Erbil, said: “There is a deep sense of Christians losing trust in the future and we are finding many families who want to leave Iraq altogether which is a big loss for us.”

Turkomans

Christians are not the only minority to fear the advance of ISIS: there have been various reports of attacks on Shabak villages; and Turkomans, Iraq’s long-persecuted third largest ethnic group, are also being targeted by the insurgents.

Turkomans Front official Aydin Maroof told local media on 6 July that 200 Turkomans have been killed and 200,000 displaced as a result of ISIS attacks in Nineveh and Kirkuk. According to HRW, on 23 June, ISIS raided the villages of Guba and Shireekhan, close to Mosul and home to Shia Turkomans. Homes and farms were ransacked, four Shia places of worship were blown up, and some 950 Turkoman families were forced out of the area.
Other Turkoman places of worship have also been attacked in Tal Afar, 50km west of Mosul, HRW said.

“It is a kind of genocide against Turkomans and against other people of Iraq,” Ali Bayatli, from Kirkuk, and the head of the Association of Turkoman Lawyers in Iraq, told IRIN.

Explaining how many of the displaced Turkomans had sought refuge in Kirkuk, he added: “Those people who came to Kirkuk feel they are now in peace, but this is temporary. We don’t know what will be tomorrow.”

Yezidis

In Bashiqa, a mixed Yezidi and Shabak village about 22km northeast of Mosul, Hussam Salim, a volunteer programme manager for the Yezidi Solidarity and Fraternity League charity, said people were living in fear of ISIS following the release of video footage by the militants of a group of kidnapped Yezidis.

“The Yezidi community here feels very threatened by ISIS policies. They feel hopeless here and many people are either leaving to Europe or talking about leaving,” he explained.

Yezidis follow an ancient religion related to the Zoroastrian faith. They worship a deity called the Peacock Angel, who was supposedly cast out of heaven by God, and as a result are often branded devil worshippers. Over the years, Iraq’s Yezidis, who number around 500,000, have faced significant persecution and attacks, but the advance of ISIS poses a new threat, especially given the community’s geographical position in territories long disputed between Kurdistan and Iraq and now on the frontline of ISIS’s so-called caliphate.

“ISIS targets different people in different ways but they have rules about certain religions and that makes people here very afraid,” Salim said. “At the moment we have the Kurdish Peshmerga forces here, but we know the ISIS line is only 5km away and we can see their checkpoints, so we are very worried.”

Despite the chaos, the country’s political elite in Baghdad has shown little sign of negotiating a settlement, with parliament again cancelling sessions on 7 July.

Minorities in disputed territory

Kurdish leaders have, meanwhile, seized the moment to call for separation from the rest of Iraq, and Massoud Barzani, president of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, has said he intends to hold a referendum on independence within months.

However, while there is strong support for independence among Kurds in Kurdistan, not all of the minorities living in the disputed territories that the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) wants to claim wish to be defined as Kurdish.

Thirsa de Vries, Iraq senior programme officer for Dutch NGO PAX, said any potential partition added to the vulnerable state of Iraq’s minorities and she called on the international community to “be aware” of local politics which, she said, was “part of larger power plays for land and influence”.

“For years, identity politics have been used to manipulate the small minorities living on the Nineveh plain – disputed territory between the KRG and the Iraqi central government,” she said, adding that her organization had received many reports from Shabaks, Yazidis and Christians pressured to affiliate with both sides and in some cases forced to do so in return for protection.

“The current crisis increases the pressure on minorities to choose sides, and attempts to manipulate their identities increase.”

The post Iraq’s Minorities Under Fire – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73722 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images