All nonviolent struggles are conducted simultaneously in the political and strategic spheres, and these spheres, which are distinct, interact throughout. I have discussed this at length elsewhere.1 Despite this, only rarely have nonviolent struggles been conducted with a conscious awareness of this vitally important relationship. Gandhi’s campaigns were very effective partly because he understood the distinction and relationship between politics and strategy in nonviolent struggle. And the failure of many campaigns can be attributed, in part, to the fact that most activists do not.

To illustrate the distinction and the relationship between these two spheres, and to highlight their vital importance, this article discusses them within the simpler context of nonviolent actions.

Every nonviolent action has a political objective and a strategic goal. When planning an action, it is vitally important to distinguish between its objective and its goal. The political objective of the action is a statement of what the group wants to do: to demonstrate in the city square, to hang a peace sign on the nuclear warship, to picket a factory, to blockade the bulldozer, to occupy the embassy, to go on strike.

But why does the group want to do this? Usually, it is to persuade one or more sections of the community to act differently in relation to the campaign issue. So the strategic goal identifies, first, who the group wants to influence, and second, what they want them to do. For example, if the political objective is to demonstrate in the city square, one possible strategic goal might be to cause members of the public to speak out in support of the activist perspective. If the political objective is to picket a factory, the strategic goal might be to cause workers (through persuasion) not to enter it. If the political objective is to blockade a bulldozer, the strategic goal might be
to cause workers to stop logging, or, if the media is present, to cause
television viewers to not buy old- growth timber from a particular company.

As can be seen from these simple examples, it makes more sense to decide the strategic goal first, and to then design an action to ensure that the goal is achieved. In other words, it is superior strategy to 1. decide who you want to influence AND what you want them to do (derived from the political and strategic assessment that guides your struggle), 2. decide on a tactic that will do this, and 3. design the action so that it will do this most effectively.

Thus, a strategic goal should be stated using this form: to cause a specified group of people to act in a specified way. Further examples
of strategic goals that conform to this formula include: to cause trade unionists to place work-bans on ships carrying uranium, to cause more men to speak out publicly against domestic violence, to cause builders to stop using old-growth timber.

Once the strategic goal has been carefully and specifically defined, equally careful thought should be put into working out what tactic (at this stage of the strategy) will most likely achieve this goal and how it should be designed (so that it will cause the specified audience to act in the specified way). Of course, good action design requires an awareness of what makes nonviolent action work in the first place.

Nonviolent action works because of its capacity to create a favourable political atmosphere (because of, for example, the way in which activist honesty builds trust); its capacity to create a non-threatening physical environment (because of the nonviolent discipline of the activists); and its capacity to alter the human psychological conditions (both innate and learned) that make people resist new ideas in the first place. This includes its capacity to reduce or eliminate fear and its capacity to ‘humanise’ activists in the eyes of more conservative sections of the community. In essence, nonviolent activists precipitate change because people are inspired
by the honesty, discipline, integrity, courage and determination of the activists – despite arrests, beatings or imprisonment – and are thus inclined to identify with them. Moreover, as an extension of this, they are inclined to act in solidarity.

To summarise and illustrate the argument so far, consider a nonviolent struggle in which the activists are working to end sexual violence in a local community. One strategic goal of the group might be: to cause the men in a specified group (perhaps those in a particular organisation) to take specified action (sign a personal pledge to not use pornography? put a sign in their front window saying they abhor sexual violence? undertake to speak out publicly against all forms of sexual violence? join a group that organises counselling for male perpetrators?) to help halt sexual violence in
that community. The strategic goal will be achieved, at least in part, if some men respond by doing the specified act(s). So what should be the political objective of the action; that is, what nonviolent action will best cause the specified men to act in this way? To ‘out’ known perpetrators by putting their photograph in public places? To conduct a street rally involving local women? To repaint a billboard that objectifies women? To picket the local hotel or brothel every Saturday night? To organise an exhibition of artwork by survivors of sexual violence? Or something else? For the action to be strategically effective, it must be planned to achieve the strategic goal.

And how might the action be designed to maximise its effectiveness? What qualities (truthfulness? dignity? respectfulness?) can the activists demonstrate that will most influence these men? How can the action be carried out in a way that engages these men? For example, human needs theory suggests that if you want people to change their behaviour, activists must provide opportunities for involvement that allow people to enhance their self-esteem
and/or security, at least.

If the strategic goal of a nonviolent action is achieved, then the action was strategically effective; this does not mean or require, however, that its political objective was achieved. In fact, it might not have been. This is because strategic effectiveness is unrelated to the achievement of the political objective. For example, the political objective of activists might be to blockade a bulldozer. However, the (usually unspecified) strategic goal of the bulldozer blockade should be something like this: to cause consumers to stop buying (the specified) paper products that are made from woodchips taken from old-growth forest (by a specified company). In this case, as long
as the action is well-designed, it does not matter if the activists are
arrested before the blockade takes place, because the message of their truthfulness, commitment, discipline, courage and sacrifice, together with the solidarity action they are calling for (which will undermine the power of their opponent), will still go out to their audience. In short, the failure to physically stop the bulldozer is strategically irrelevant.

It is the failure to distinguish between the political objective and the
strategic goal that often causes a great deal of confusion, particularly around such questions as the role of secrecy and sabotage, in planning nonviolent actions. Many groups attach great importance to the political objective of their action, and use secrecy to improve their prospects of being able to carry it out. But this is invariably counterproductive, in the strategic sense, and is based on a flawed understanding of how and why nonviolence works. This is because, as explained above, achievement of the political objective is not equivalent to achievement of the strategic goal.

And while many activists achieve their (secret) political objective, they fail to achieve (what should be) their strategic goal (to cause specified people to act in the specified way) because the qualities (such as honesty and integrity) of activists that inspire their audience are not allowed into play. (There are, of course, many other reasons why the use of secrecy is strategically counterproductive.)

For some types of action – such as a rally, a picket or a strike – no one
would even suggest using secrecy. But whatever the action, as explained above, strategic effectiveness is unrelated to whether the action is successfully carried out or not (provided it is strategically selected, well-designed and sincerely attempted). This point was classically illustrated by the Indian satyagrahis who attempted to nonviolently invade the Dharasana salt works in 1930.2 Despite repeated attempts by many hundreds of activists to walk into the salt works during a three week period, not one activist got a pinch of salt! But an account of the activists’ nonviolent discipline, commitment and courage – under the baton blows of the police -
was reported in 1,350 newspapers around the world. As a result, this action – which failed to achieve the political objective of seizing salt – functionally undermined support for British imperialism in India.3 If the activists had resorted to the use of secrecy, there would have been no chance to demonstrate their honesty, integrity and determination – and to thus inspire empathy for their cause – although they might have got some salt!4

For essentially the same reason (as well as many others not discussed here), sabotage is strategically counterproductive when employed as part of a nonviolent struggle. If the important aspect of a nonviolent action is its strategic goal, then activists who plan acts of sabotage (that is, for example, their political objective is to disable a bulldozer or to destroy the nose cone of a nuclear missile) must be able to identify how this act will cause their specified audience(s) to act on the issue in the specified way(s). If they cannot, the action might well be strategically ineffective or even counterproductive, no matter how much media attention is gained if the political objective (damaging the equipment) is achieved. Thus, although this act might mobilise some people (and recent conflict theory provides several
thorough explanations of why it will be few), the fact remains that activists who use sabotage (and the secrecy that almost invariably accompanies it) are placing too much emphasis on their political objective (the act of sabotage itself) rather than their (unidentified) strategic goal. As explained above, this limits the possibility of activist qualities that inspire the audience being allowed into play.

Whether or not activists achieve their political objective is strategically irrelevant. This is because an effective nonviolent action is designed to achieve its strategic goal, irrespective of the response of opponents or the authorities to the political objective of the action. Whether or not activists achieve their strategic goal, however, is always strategically determinative.

This article first appeared in Nonviolence Today

References
1. Robert J. Burrowes. The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
2. Because it illustrates the point so effectively, I have simply repeated the example that I cited in an earlier article. See Robert J. Burrowes. ‘Nonviolent Activism and [the] Police’. Nonviolence Today #37, March/April 1994. pp. 10-12.
3. For an account of the salt raids at Dharasana, see Thomas Weber. ‘”The Marchers Simply Walked Forward Until Struck Down”: Nonviolent Suffering and Conversion’. Peace & Change 18, 3, July 1993. pp. 267-289.
4. If salt had been removed secretly, the British government could, if they had chosen, ignored it (after all, who would have known or cared?). However, they could not afford to let the satyagrahis take salt openly because salt removal was illegal and failure to react would have shown the salt law – a law that represented the antithesis of Indian independence – to be ineffective.

The post The Political Objective And Strategic Goal Of Nonviolent Actions – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Hamdi Fırat Büyük

After several attempts of the Srebrenica victims’ relatives, finally, as expected, a court in the Netherlands has found that the Dutch state was responsible for the deaths of 300 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica after Dutch UN troops handed them over to the Bosnian Serb forces led by General Ratko Mladic.

The District Court of The Hague on Wednesday said the victims, more than 8,000 men and boys who were murdered in the worst massacre since World War II at the hearth of Europe, would have survived if Dutch troops, which were part of the UN mission in Bosnia during the war, had not handed them over to Bosnian Serbs.

The case was brought forward by the “Mothers of Srebrenica that represents more than 6,000 relatives of the victims. The initiative basically accused the Dutch UN peace keeping mission force, also known as “Dutchbat” or “Dutch Battalion”, of failing to prevent the massacre. As it is known, the town of Srebrenica located in Eastern Bosnia was seized by Serb forces. Originally it had been declared one of six UN safe havens in Bosnia during the war.

Court: “Dutch army officials are not responsible of whole death toll”

The court sentenced that the Dutch army officials should have anticipated that more than 300 Bosnian men, who sought refuge in the Dutch base stationed in the village of Potocari, would be killed if they were handed over to the Serbs.

Additionally and disappointingly, the court ruled that Dutch army officials were not liable for the deaths of other Muslim men and boys who tried to hide in the forest and wilderness of Srebrenica.

In the verdict, the District Court ruled that “The state (Netherlands) is liable for the loss suffered by relatives of the men who were deported by the Bosnian Serbs from the Dutchbat compound in Potocari in the afternoon of 13 July, 1995.”

“Dutchbat should have taken into account the possibility that these men would be the victims of genocide and that it can be said with sufficient certainty that, had Dutchbat allowed them to stay at the compound, these men would have remained alive,” it also said.

More than 7,000 Muslim Bosniaks from Srebrenica were murdered in total in the worst massacre on the continent since WWII that the international court has already defined as “genocide”.

Court decision is not enough but a good start

One of the lawyers of the Srebrenica Mothers, Semir Guzin, said that “By this verdict, the court categorized the massacre victims. Our demand was partially recognized as the Netherlands was held responsible for only 300 victims, not for the thousands that were slayed after they sought shelter with the Dutch troops in Potocari.” He added that the families would appeal the verdict.

The Dutch peacekeepers who were stationed in Srebrenica after it was declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993 had an obligation to protect the civilian population. The relatives’ lawsuit charged them with failing to do so. Additionally, the relatives insist that the Dutch Battalion is responsible for the massacre and not only for 300 victims. They will (have to) continue to claim the rights of victims in the courts at both the domestic and international level.

In spite of its criticisms, the court’s ruling should be seen as a success of the victims’ relatives. The sentence may not be fair and did not entirely meet their demands, but it is a good start in the process of claiming the rights of the victims. Now, for the first time, after several attempts over nearly the last 20 years, there is a legally binding decision of a European court on the Srebrenica massacre.

Munira Subasic, whose son was among those who took refuge in the Dutch compound but was expelled and then killed, welcomed the verdict but said that the judges should have ruled that the Netherlands was responsible for all the Srebrenica deaths. She added that they, the Mothers of Srebrenica, are not satisfied that the court didn’t recognize all the victims who died because the Dutch troops did not protect them.

Last week, more than 15,000 people marked the 19th anniversary of the genocide at a remembrance ceremony in the village of Potocari which included the burial of 175 of the victims who were newly identified over the past years.

Up to present, 30 Bosnian Serb army officials and politicians have been jailed over the genocide. Still, the cases of their leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who were in charge during the war between 1992 and 1995, are still in the courts.

UN peacekeeping operations begin to be questioned

After the court decision, the success of UN peace missions has again begun to be questioned. From their commencement to the present, peacekeeping missions have always been debated. As the UN says, “UN peacekeeping missions operate in the most dangerous and difficult environments in the world, dealing with conflicts – or their aftermath – which others cannot or will not address. We can achieve what others can’t, but success is never guaranteed.”

The UN has built up an impressive record of peacekeeping missions over its more than 60 years of existence, including winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Since the foundation of the UN, the world’s largest international institution has helped to end conflicts and foster reconciliation by conducting peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries, including Cambodia, El Salvador, Kosovo, Guatemala, Mozambique, Namibia, Bosnia and Tajikistan.

In spite of the high number of UN peacekeeping missions and the UN’s interventionist tendencies, conflict-related death tolls have been increasing and the number of conflicts increases day by day. According to the Uppsala Conflict Database Program, 21,860 conflicts have been recorded since 1943 and now there are 35 ongoing armed conflicts (24 intrastate/11 interstate) which differ from previous conflicts based on reasons such as information technology, counter terrorism, increasing religious and cultural motivations and dissident topics like gender and environment. In this regard, obviously the UN peacekeeping operations are not enough to prevent all conflicts around the world. Moreover, as a well-known academic in peace studies, Peter Wallenstein says the budget of UN peacekeeping operations is less than the New York City Fire Department’s budget.

In a word, in addition to Bosnian Serb leaders and the Dutch Battalion in Srebrenica, UN peacekeeping missions themselves are also standing trial. The court decision is just the beginning, more cases and rulings are obviously underway. Not in the short-term but in the long-term, UN peacekeeping units and operations might have to be restructured even though for this case it is obviously late.

The post Court: Dutch Peacekeepers Liable For 300 Srebrenica Deaths – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Of all the partners in international crime in existence right now, the United States and Israel are the worst. Along with their less powerful cohorts like Saudi Arabia they have instigated occupations and carnage on a mass scale. Yet while one hand washes the other, it isn’t always clear who controls whom. Israel uses the political and economic muscle of its supporters to keep American politicians in line, but it also doesn’t have to work very hard to find a receptive ear in Washington.

After killing American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011, the Obama administration refused to disclose the legal rationale for the assassination. Fortunately, Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the New York Timesand the American Civil Liberties Union revealed that Israel’s war crimes were used as pretexts for American wrong doing.

A Department of Justice memorandum written by David Barron, now an Obama-appointed federal judge, legitimizes extra judicial killings on the grounds that Israel does the same thing. A 2006 Israeli Supreme Court decision ruled that targeted assassination of hundreds of Palestinians were legal and did not violate international law.

Actions by foreign governments are rarely used to justify American policy decisions. On any other subject Obama claims that the United States is exceptional and must be not just a leader in the world, but THE leader in the world. Apparently, claims of exceptionality end when it comes to explaining away state sponsored terror.

Israel becomes the convenient excuse for American criminality but it also acts like this country’s worst enemy. Israel has been caught spying on the United States numerous times. It killed 34 sailors when it attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, murdered United States citizens Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dolgan and uses the threat of electoral defeat to keep American politicians in line. None of these outrages ever damage Israel’s ability to get its way in Washington. Even local and state legislators around the country are loath to stray from the Zionist party line.

Yet Israel is also the tool for American imperialism. Its purported need for security is used as an excuse to destroy the Iranian economy with sanctions, or anything else which also serves U.S. imperial interests. The two countries are true “frenemies,” dependent upon one another while also engaging in high level dysfunction.

Right now Israel is getting its way in Gaza as it kills men, women and children with impunity. The story is the same. Israelis in Sderot sit on a hilltop and watch bombs fall on homes, schools and hospitals that have now killed at least 185 people. Only one Israeli was killed by the Hamas rockets which Americans are told are a threat to Israel’s existence.

The corporate media in the United States and other western nations ignore, minimize or tell outright lies about the ongoing massacre. In the most egregious example, ABC news used video showing destruction in Gaza and claimed the footage came from Israel.

While it is true that the photos and videos of maimed and dead children are hardly top secret in the age of the internet, one must be extremely committed to finding information on the scale of the slaughter and of Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations of entire families. Certainly the networks and the major newspapers could make this same information available but they dare not oppose the political order.

Barack Obama and his other partners in world gangsterism such as the prime ministers of Canada, the United Kingdom and other NATO countries blurt out the same lying rhetoric. Like robots they report the same mantra that only Israel, the country with almost no casualties, has a right to defend itself. The Palestinians only have the right to be killed.

Americans are like the wronged lover who is the last to know. Thanks in large measure to media and government propaganda they have no idea who is the aggressor and who is the injured party. Millions of people all over the world are outraged and hate not just our president and congress, but all of us as individuals. The Israeli and American governments have put a bull’s eye on all of our backs and citizens of this country are largely ignorant of the risk to us all.

War crimes prosecutions are never meant for the powerful countries and their friends. If that were so, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu and Tony Blair and King Abdullah and George W. Bush and Paul Kagame would all be in the dock. They are definitely criminals but they are the top ranked criminals or their henchmen. They never pay the price but people in Gaza still do.

The post American And Israeli War Crimes – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As Jonathan Cook put it, “In the face of the enduring violence of Israel’s occupation, and the license it provides soldiers to humiliate and oppress, ordinary Palestinians have a stark choice: to submit or resist.” They are not going to submit but there is, it seems to me, an urgent need for the Palestinian David to rethink his strategy for resisting the nuclear-armed Zionist Goliath if hope for an acceptable amount of justice for his people is to be kept alive.

Despite the fact that it was provoked by Israel (a fact Western governments and the mainstream media don’t want to acknowledge), I have to say that I think the resort to rocket attacks by Hamas and other groups was stupid in the extreme because it gave Israel’s leaders exactly what they wanted – a pretext not only for a major military offensive against Hamas and punishing the entire population of the besieged Gaza Strip but, also, the opportunity to advance their utterly false and ludicrous claim that Israel has the moral right on its side. (As Rashid Khalidi has pointed out, Israel’s latest war on the Gaza Strip has also obscured the core issues – Israeli “racism, occupation and colonization.”)

The best account I have read of how Israel provoked Hamas was written by Max Blumenthal under the headline Netanyahu Government Knew Teens Were Dead As It Whipped Up Racist Frenzy. Here is part of what he wrote.

From the moment three Israeli teens were reported missing last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s military-intelligence apparatus suppressed the flow of information to the general public. Through a toxic blend of propaganda, subterfuge and incitement, they inflamed a precarious situation, manipulating Israelis into supporting their agenda until they made an utterly avoidable nightmare inevitable.

Israeli police, intelligence officials and Netanyahu knew within hours of the kidnapping and murder of the three teens that they had been killed. And they knew who the prime suspects were less than a day after the kidnapping was reported.

Rather than reveal these details to the public, Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency imposed a gag order on the national media, barring news outlets from reporting that the teens had almost certainly been killed, and forbidding them from revealing the identities of their suspected killers. The Shin Bet even lied to the parents of the kidnapped teens, deceiving them into believing their sons were alive.

Instead of mounting a limited action to capture the suspected perpetrators and retrieve the teens’ bodies, Netanyahu staged an aggressive international public relations campaign, demanding sympathy and outrage from world leaders, who were also given the impression that the missing teens were still alive.

Meanwhile, Israel’s armed forces rampaged throughout the occupied West Bank and bombarded the Gaza Strip in a campaign of collective punishment deceptively marketed to Israelis and the world as a rescue mission.

The Israeli rampage described by Blumenthal, and which included the arrest of hundreds of Hamas supporters, was the provocation. As Jeff Halper put it, “What is clear is that the military operations had a purpose of their own, that they would have been launched regardless, that they were merely waiting on a pretext.”

Israel’s purpose in making life hell for the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is, as it always has been, to cause them either to give up their struggle and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table or, preferably, abandon their homeland and seek new lives elsewhere. (The headline over Halper’s article was Israel’s message to the Palestinians – Submit, Leave or Die).

In that light there is a case for saying that the best form of resistance is simply more of the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness the occupied and oppressed Palestinians have demonstrated to date in saying “No” to crumbs from Zionism’s table and staying put on what remains of their land. In other words, their continued presence, their very existence, is a powerful form of resistance. But on its own that’s not enough if obtaining an acceptable amount of justice is not to become a mission impossible.

So to the question.

If violence of any kind is not an option because it assists Israel’s leaders to go on selling their propaganda lies and is therefore counter-productive, what must happen if Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation is to be given new and more effective life?

In my analysis there is only one answer to that question. I have said what I believe it to be on several occasions over the past year or more but I’m going to say it again with emphasis.

THE IMPOTENT AND CORRUPT PALESTINE AUTHORITY (PA), WHICH IS VIRTUALLY AN EXTENSION OF ISRAEL’S OWN SECURITY SERVICES, MUST BE DISSOLVED WITH COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE OCCUPATION OF THE WEST BANK HANDED BACK TO ISRAEL.

This would impose significant security, financial and other burdens on Israel but, more to the point, it would make the task of calling and holding the Zionist state to account for its defiance of international law and its crimes something less than what it currently is – a mission impossible.

What I mean is that Israel’s policy and actions in the new situation would make it increasingly difficult for the major powers led by the U.S. to go on supporting Israel right or wrong. If they did they would be exposed fully naked as Zionist puppets, complicit in Zionism’s defiance of international law and crimes. My speculation (am I naive?) is that they would not want to be seen like that.

Handing complete responsibility and accountability for occupation back to Israel would not only concentrate the minds of the leaders and governments of the major powers. It would also enable activist groups of all faiths and none which campaign for justice for the Palestinians to sharpen their focus and be more effective.

With the PA dissolved and Israel completely responsible and accountable for its occupation, the Palestinians could assist the process of refocusing the world’s attention on their claim for justice by demonstrating, peacefully, on a weekly basis, in each and every Palestinian community on the occupied West Bank. The demonstrators would be armed only with banners bearing a simple message – “End The Occupation”. And they would not respond to any Israeli attack with stone throwing or violence of any kind.

Quite possibly Israel’s government would ban such demonstrations, but such a ban would convey its own message to the world, as would a violent Israeli reaction to peaceful Palestinian demonstrations.

Who would speak for and represent the occupied and oppressed Palestinians if the PA was dissolved? Simple. The PLO, preferably with fresh elections to its executive committee.

Quite possibly Israel’s government would then ban and outlaw the PLO but that, too, would convey its own message to the world.

A new strategy for Palestinian resistance as indicated above would change the dynamics of the conflict.

Without such a change I believe that Zionism’s monster child will remain above the law and free to impose its will on the Palestinians, the region and the world.

In that event obtaining an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians will be and will remain a mission impossible.

Footnote

President Obama’s silence on Israel’s latest killing spree – I agree with Ilan Pappe that it’s “incremental genocide” – invites my complete contempt for him. A post by Chris Ernesto with the headline Thank you, President Obama, Love, Israel says all that needs to be said on this aspect of the matter. It is available on

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39066.htm

The post Wanted: A New Strategy For Palestinian Resistance – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The contention that Israel is on its path of conflict against Gaza in its pursuit of self-defence is not acceptable. If armed force is to be justified as self-defence under the UN Charter, it is absolutely necessary that a precursor armed attack occurred. This is simply not the case with respect to illegally-occupied Palestine.

By Kirthi Jayakumar

The first thing I learned at law school was that the law does nothing to obliterate the effects of death and destruction that have already taken place. Rather, it is something that is learned out of death and destruction – in furtherance of an effort that strives to ensure that such death and destruction does not repeat itself. International Humanitarian Law has been born out of the ashes of conflict, in an attempt to govern and regulate conflict since its creation. Unfortunately, however, as with Public International Law, Humanitarian Law is observed very often in its breach than otherwise. The latest instance of in-the-breach-observation happens to be the latest round of strikes by Israel on Gaza.

A state of war

Whatever one might like to counter this with, Israel and Palestine are undoubtedly in a “state of war”; and this state of war has continued for 66 years straight. International Law has a role to play in the conflict in two different contexts. On the one hand, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is applicable through the rubric of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977. On the other hand, International Law governs the territorial question that pegs Israel and Palestine in a state of conflict – the implications of which can go a long way in determining sovereign control over the region, while also characterizing the nature of Israel’s acts.

In 1948, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian nation drove Palestinians out of their homes. Israel conquered 78% of Palestine; and three-quarters of a million Palestinians became refugees; over 500 towns and villages were obliterated; and a new map was drawn-up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new, Hebrew name. In 1967, Israel conquered more land, following the Six Day War and occupied the final 22% of Palestine that had eluded it in 1948 – namely, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Post-war, Israel also occupied parts of Egypt (since returned) and Syria (which remain under occupation). In 1973, the Yom Kippur War saw Syria and Egypt embark on a surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Hebrew Calendar. The war spiralled out of control when Jordan, Iraq and other Arab Nations either joined in or offered staunch support. In 1978, the Camp David Accords were signed with Egypt by Israel, with the latter agreeing to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula for peace, and for a future negotiation over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In 1979, the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty was signed, with Egypt becoming the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. In all the years between, violence continued.

From 1967 through a peace agreement in 1993, including during the first intifada, Israel largely limited its use of force to police actions and imprisonment, though human rights violations persisted. However, with the redeployments agreed to under the Oslo Accords, and particularly since the start of the second intifada, Israel asserted its right to wage war on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank through military force.

Since 1967, Israel has continuously laid claim that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the areas it had acquired, and do not apply to its conduct towards the Palestinians. They buttress these contentions with several “grounds”, one of which simply asserts that the Palestinians are not a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions. However, the Fourth Geneva Convention governing all militarily captured territories and their civilian population does and can apply to this case, and this view is supported by international legal opinion, United Nations resolutions and the International Court of Justice. Israel further relies on rather different interpretations of International Humanitarian Law in order to assert legitimacy. In reality, however, Israel indulges in unlawful practices as it continuously opposes Palestinian resistance to its occupation. Israel claims that Palestine’s resistance is not resistance, but terrorism, and that there is no right to self-determination or right to seek freedom for the Palestinians. Israel thus lays claim that it fights terrorism, and not a war, therefore, it is not governed by International Humanitarian Law. Nevertheless, these contentions are not acceptable. Primarily, Palestine is a state even if Israel chooses to reject its status thus. Palestine has a population, a territory although impinged upon by an external actor, a government, and active relations with other states across the world which evidences a capacity to enter into relations. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions do apply to the conflict. Even if one were to support the notion that Palestine is not a state and that Israel wages war against ‘terror’, the Geneva Conventions will still apply, because it is a part of customary international law, which applies to any war.

International Humanitarian Law

Given that there is a state of war. International Humanitarian Law immediately comes into play. It governs the process of waging war, and its effects on civilians, dictating five main principles that govern conduct in an armed conflict, the violation of which are construed as grave breaches that can be construed as war crimes. The five principles are:

1. Civilian Immunity must be preserved. There is a prohibition against intentionally targeting civilians or otherwise treating them as combatants
2. The principle of distinction must guide conduct in conflict. It is imperative to distinguish between civilians and combatants in military operations, and equally so for combatants to distinguish themselves as such through identifiable dress and insignia and by carrying arms openly
3. The element of proportionality needs to be satisfied. Force if used, should be used only in a manner that is proportionate to the military value of the target.
4. The element of necessity needs to be fulfilled. It is essential to restrict targets or tactics only to those that are necessary to achieve legitimate military goals
5. Meting out humane treatment is a sine qua non. There is a prohibition of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, and a continued existence of the imperative to guard the rights and interests of “protected persons” – who in effect, are civilians in occupied territories.

Israel’s conduct against these principles reveals clearly that it is on the wrong side of the law. Palestine’s resistance against occupation is not wholly legally prohibited, as Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions has established the right of a people to use armed force in order to resist foreign occupation and colonial domination, and to fight against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination. That Israel and its strongest ally in international relations, the US, have refused to sign the protocol is no basis for the non-recognition of the existence of such rights. The lawfulness of the use of armed force does not have anything to do with the status of the enemy, but rather, on the way the force has been used in keeping with the principles of International Humanitarian Law.

The contention that Israel is on its path of conflict against Gaza in its pursuit of self-defence is not acceptable. If armed force is to be justified as self-defence under the UN Charter, which is what should be the norm, it is absolutely necessary that a precursor armed attack occurred. If it must be justified under customary international law, there must be a grave, overwhelming and imminent threat that can only be responded to by using military force as means of last resort because diplomacy and politics have failed. But none of this exists: the people of Palestine are resisting a force meted out to them in the form of illegal occupation and dispossession, through resistance. And yet, this self-defence rationale has been happily endorsed by Israel’s core allies.

Israel, this time round, is hiding behind a defence that it has been using since 2009 - that it had warned civilians, but they hadn’t vacated in time, making them “legitimate collateral damage”. Except, these “warnings” have barely been warnings – comprised as they are of phone calls with only minutes to spare for evacuation, or even warning fire.

Kirthi Jayakumar is a Lawyer, specialized in public international law and human rights. A graduate of the School of Excellence in Law, Chennai, Kirthi has diversified into research and writing on public international law and human rights. She has worked as a UN Volunteer, specializing in human rights research in Africa, India and Central Asia and the Middle East. She also runs a journal and consultancy that focuses on international law, called A38.

The post Israel’s Gaza Offensive – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The phantom of ‘sweeping victory’ and ‘phenomenal personality’ has suddenly jumped out from behind the garb of reconciliatory politics. For various reasons, the government of Narendra Modi appears in a hurry to either explode or defuse the dynamite in Kashmir. It could be a policy implementation matter for the Indian government to ask UN military observers to vacate their forty-year-old accommodation in New Delhi, but it cannot be denied that it has serious implications. With such a dramatic political initiative, the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) led government could be expected to initiate a process to erase Article 370 of the Indian constitution – which grants special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir – in a few months.

Though India has not reported any ceasefire violation to military observers since 1972, this does not mean that the Indian government can declare that the UN military mission in Kashmir has lost relevance. India’s involvement with the Mission is much more than what is conveyed to its citizens. The fact that the UN military observers have been stationed in a rent-free bungalow for over forty years is given more emphasis than their need to be there. Understandably, emerging Indian economy might be looking for efficient fiscal management and out-of-the-box revenue generating possibilities, but it should not turn a blind eye on its political misfortunes. One of these misfortunes occurred in 1947.

After Pakistan and India became independent in August 1947, the state of Jammu & Kashmir was free to accede to either one of these countries. Its accession to India by the then rulers became a matter of dispute, and fighting broke out later that year. Newly-created India was concerned over the rapidly increasing presence of armed tribesmen in the Kashmir region, and decided to take this dispute to the United Nations.

In January 1948, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 39 establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. The UNMOG was the brainchild of UNCIP. Though in later years India and Pakistan never agreed over UNMOG’s mandate and functions, the first group of military observers was appointed in January 1949. Their task was to observe the ceasefire situation and report any violence to the Security Council. To some extent, this was a temporary arrangement that enjoyed international backing.

These temporary arrangements remained in effect until the Karachi Agreement in 1949. This was the first bilateral contact between two countries over the Kashmir dispute. The military representatives from both countries met together from 18 July to 27 July 1949 under the Truce Sub-Committee of UNCIP. The ceasefire line was established and both countries formally accepted the UN military observers’ role in maintaining peace. The Indian delegation comprised of Lt. Gen. SM Shrinagesh, Maj. Gen. KS Thimayya, Brigadier Manekshaw and civilian observers of the meeting were HM Patel and V. Sahay. The Pakistan delegation was comprised of Maj. Gen. Cawthorn, Maj. Gen. Nazir Ahmed, Brigadier Sher Khan and civilian observers were M. Ayub and AA Khan. The members of the Truce Sub-Committee of UNCIP were also present.

On 30 March 1951, the UNCIP of the Security Council was terminated but the UNMOG was mandated to continue by adopting UN Security Council Resolution 91. Another ceasefire came into effect in 1971 under an accord between two countries. The UN Security Council met again on 12 December 1971 to guarantee a durable ceasefire in the disputed territories in Jammu and Kashmir. The ceasefire line was renamed as the Line of Control in 1972.

The personnel working in the MOGs are expert military persons who perform their duties unarmed and are strictly impartial. They are mandated by the Security Council to monitor the armistice, implement peace agreements, negotiate between the parties involved and prevent a dangerous escalation of conflict. They routinely patrol, observe any changes in the positions of militaries on both sides, talk to people, keep a close eye on military behaviour on sensitive borders and report to UN headquarters in New York. They act as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the UN Security Council. Their disappearance would mean the Security Council has turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to Kashmir.

The BJP government’s browbeating attitude towards UN military observers cannot be taken merely as a rent issue. In a politically turbulent atmosphere, a segment of the Indian press has highlighted it as a typical BJP political manoeuvre which involves Indian government’s attempt to show its resolve in implementing its agenda. In fact, it is a significant attempt to ask the world powers who support the resolution of the Kashmir issue in accordance with UN Resolutions to pipe down their trumpets and be ready to march out from Kashmir. UN military observers might consider renting out other premises to continue with their mandated tasks, but their complete withdrawal from Kashmir would require more serious home work to defend a renewed Indian stance in New York.

Mazhar Iqbal is a peace and human rights activist and member of Press for Peace, a rights advocacy organisation working in Jammu and Kashmir. Press for Peace is a member of the Global Coalition for Conflict Transformation.

This article appeared at Transconflict and is reprinted with permission.

The post Sweeping Victory In India Orders UN About Turn Over Kashmir – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Terri Moon Cronk

Teams aboard the U.S. ship MV Cape Ray continue to neutralize materials from Syria’s declared chemical stockpile, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters on Friday.

Personnel aboard the ship began the chemical materials neutralizing process in international waters earlier this month.

“As of this morning, the crew has neutralized just over 15 percent of the DF [methylphosphonyl difluoride], which is a Sarin precursor,” Kirby said. “This amount has been verified by the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”

The second material to be neutralized is sulfur mustard, also known as HD.

The neutralizing technique uses field-deployable hydrolysis systems that mix the chemicals in a titanium reactor so they become inert. A safe pace of neutralization operations will increase gradually, Pentagon officials said. The process is expected to take about 60 days, officials added.

Italian officials loaded 78 containers of the Syrian chemical materials aboard the Cape Ray on July 2, and the U.S. government-owned ship left Gioia Tauro, Italy, and headed to sea with 600 tons of chemicals.

Syria delivered 1,300 metric tons of chemical materials for neutralization. The Cape Ray teams will neutralize 600 tons, and the byproducts, called effluent, will be sent to Finnish and German facilities to be destroyed, officials said. The remaining 700 tons of material will be delivered to commercial and government facilities in Europe and the United States for neutralization.

While the leftover neutralized material will be considered hazardous waste, it cannot be used to make chemical weapons, officials said.

Joint chemical weapons teams from the OPCW and the United Nations began securing Syrian chemical sites in early October, and the Syrian government gave up the last of its declared chemical stockpiles June 23.

The MV Cape Ray was modified and deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to dispose of the chemical agents in accordance with terms Syria agreed to late last year.

The post Cape Ray Continues Neutralizing Syrian Chemical Materials appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Shia-on-line reports that Mowlavi Abdolhamid, a senior Sunni leader and the Friday Mass Imam of Zahedan, is now facing a travel ban.

The report adds that Mowlavi Abdolhamid was planning to leave Iran for a trip to Turkey when he was made aware of the travel ban.

Last year, Mowlavi Abdolhamid was also prevented from participating in the International Conference of the World of Islam Association.

Sunni prisoners in Evin, Rejaishahr and Qezel Hessar wrote a letter to the Rohani administration, calling on the president to make good on his promises to relieve the pressure on religious minorities and address the needs of Sunnis in Iran.

The post Iran: Sunni Cleric Barred From Leaving Country appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, and the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, made today the following statement:

“We, together with the Political Directors of the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), have worked intensively towards a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, building on the political momentum created by the adoption and smooth implementation by both sides of the Joint Plan of Action agreed on 24 November 2013. We are grateful to the Austrian government and the United Nations for their tremendous support in hosting these negotiations in Vienna.

We have held numerous meetings in different formats, and in a constructive atmosphere, to reach a mutually agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful.

During the past few weeks, we have further intensified our efforts, including through the active involvement of E3+3 Foreign Ministers or their Vice Ministers, who came to Vienna on 13 July 2014 to take stock of progress in the talks. While we have made tangible progress on some of the issues and have worked together on a text for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, there are still significant gaps on some core issues which will require more time and effort.

We, together with the Foreign Ministers of the E3+3, have therefore decided to extend the implementation of measures of the Joint Plan of Action until 24 November 2014, in line with the timeframe that we envisaged in the Joint Plan of Action. Iran and the E3/EU+3 reaffirm that they will continue to implement all their commitments described in the Joint Plan of Action in an efficient and timely manner.

We will reconvene in the coming weeks in different formats with the clear determination to reach agreement on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at the earliest possible moment.”

The post Joint Statement By EU High Representative Catherine Ashton And Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Pir-Mohammad Mollazehi

Following the announcement of preliminary results of the second round of presidential election in Afghanistan by the Independent Election Commission and rejection of those results by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the country has entered a new phase of political crisis. Now, the main question is what future prospect awaits this country? Any effort to find a realistic answer to this question should involve careful review of political developments of Afghanistan within their historical context in which the power should be considered from the viewpoints of ethnic monopoly or distribution. In this way, it would be possible to provide a clearer picture of what has happened during the second round of presidential polls in the country.

It should first be noted that Dr. Abdullah’s Reform and Partnership Team strongly believes that the second round of the country’s presidential polls has been marked with widespread and organized vote rigging by the Independent Election Commission under direct supervision and intervention of the Independent Election Commission’s (IEC) Secretariat Chief Zia-ul-Haq Amarkhail. Dr. Abdullah believes that there are 11,000 suspicious ballot boxes which contain between 1.5-2 million fake votes. Therefore, he has refused to accept the results declared by the IEC according to which his rival, Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, has won the election by winning 63 percent of the vote. Dr. Abdullah has also cut all cooperation with the IEC. The Reform and Partnership Team of Dr. Abdullah is also of the opinion that three political currents joined have hands in order to ignore the final victory of Abdullah and it is the same currents that has unrightfully declared Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai as the winner of the second round of presidential election and the next president of Afghanistan. Those three currents include:

1. The political current originating from the presidential palace and led by the incumbent President Hamid Karzai;
2. The political current within the IEC under direct order from Zia-ul-Haq Amarkhail; and
3. Ashraf Ghani’s election team.

However, it seems that the problem will prove to be more complicated and will evolve into more complex dimensions. This issue is of utmost importance because Dr. Abdullah has documents to prove his claim and he has already disclosed some of them as a result of which Amarkhail resigned his post as head of the secretariat of the IEC. The main issue, however, is to find a sound way for transfer of power along the ethnic lines via such democratic and modern mechanisms as election. In reality, there were three kinds of wills at work through the second round of the presidential election in Afghanistan, which played their separate roles in forming the results that have been declared. In short, those three wills can be summarized as follows:

1. The will of the ruling technocrat and liberal team, which was the product of political arrangements reached during the first conference on Afghanistan in the German city of Bonn in 2001. This team is led by President Hamid Karzai;
2. The will of the Pashtun ethnic group with a special mentality that has arisen from 300 years of monopoly on power in Afghanistan, which is now represented by Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai; and
3. The will for distribution of power and peaceful transfer of power, which is represented by Dr. Abdullah.

In reality, the first two wills, both of whom believe in the continued monopoly on power by members of the Pashtun ethnic group, have joined hands and engineered the presidential polls in such a way as to prevent the advocates of the distribution and peaceful transfer of power from coming to power through election and by winning people’s votes. Widespread cheating in the election, which has been pointed out by Abdullah and as a result of which he has not been ready to accept the results of the election before a final decision is made on 11,000 suspicious ballot boxes, is closely related to this reality. However, this is not the sole problem. The fate of Afghanistan, peace and war, national unity and territorial integrity and the way that developments in Afghanistan may affect the entire region are much more important than the mere issue of how the power is distributed and transferred or whether the monopoly of Pashtun ethnic group on power continues or not. Now, following the rejection of the declared results of the election and victory of Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah’s Reform and Partnership Team, he has only two options to choose from:

1. To stick to his position on election results and continue his protests through civil means by bringing people into the streets and continue to disclose more information on what has actually happened; or
2. To establish a shadow government as proposed and requested by Mohammad Muhaqqiq, Abdullah’s second vice-presidential running mate, and Atta Muhammad Nur, the powerful governor of Balkh Province.

The important reality is that both these options have their own special limitations. As a result, if a logical and mutually acceptable political solution is not found and if the dispute over the election result is not taken out of its current state of stalemate through peaceful means, the risk of a civil war breaking out in Afghanistan would be higher with the option of forming a shadow government. Apart from all common risks and losses of all wars, such a civil war may finally end in territorial breakup of Afghanistan. It was through a correct understanding of this issue that Dr. Abdullah took part in the first meeting with his supporters just one day after the preliminary results were announced and asked people to give him time to make a final decision in consultation with his aides and possibly foreign advisors. In doing so, Abdullah practically avoided announcement of a shadow government. Of course, there is a more radical faction among the former commanders of Afghan Mujahedeen, which is of the opinion that the historical tradition of keeping a monopoly on power is so powerful among Pashtun ethnic group that they will never allow for peaceful transfer of power through ballot boxes to other ethnic groups. Therefore, other ethnic groups should either give in to this reality and do nothing against Pashtuns, or establish their own ethnic territory. Dr. Abdullah is currently under tremendous pressure from this faction. Proponents of this view believe that disintegration of Afghanistan is the sole and also the most suitable option for getting the country out of the historical deadlock of ethnic monopoly on power. They even mention the nine-month rule of Habibullāh Kalakani, also known as Bach-e-Saqaow, and the two-year government of Burhanuddin Rabbani both of which failed as a result of strong opposition and even uprising of Pashtuns.

During his speech, however, Abdullah Abdullah put strong emphasis on his commitment to protecting national unity and territorial integrity of Afghanistan, establishment of peace and stability in the country, and peaceful distribution of power. In doing so, he clearly indicated that he is willing to resort to civil means in a bid to end the election deadlock, which has turned his certain election win into failure through vote rigging. Nonetheless, there are serious doubts among members of the Reform and Partnership Team of Dr. Abdullah about whether the opposite side is ready to give a suitable response to this issue. In view of the current intricate situation, Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, chairman of the country’s National Security Council, has proposed reconciliation and establishment of a coalition government. In his proposed coalition government all three political currents with a claim to power; that is, the ruling technocrat and liberal team, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai’s election team, and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah’s Reform and Partnership Team would play their respective roles in and help the distribution of power to take place smoothly. The problem is that it is not clear whether the two teams that were rivals in the election will accept such a formula or not. Therefore, the eyes are now riveted on intervention from the United Nations and the United States and everybody is waiting for them to interfere and prevent further escalation of crisis and possible breakout of an all-out ethnic civil war in the country.

At any rate, judging from what has happened up to the present time, it is clear that Afghanistan is facing a serious threat of civil war. Such a war will also enjoy a high potential for taking an ethnic turn, if a rapid solution is not found to avert this risk and if two parallel governments are formed by two election candidates, Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, both of whom have a claim to have won the vote. Such a war may be also ensued with breakup of Afghanistan into two northern and southern parts along Pashtun and non-Pashtun geographical lines. It goes without saying that such a development will be able to affect the entire region and catalyze other instances of ethnic secessionism to which all regional countries will be losers in the long run. It is through correct understanding of this situation that some observers of South Asia developments believe that developments in Afghanistan are just part of a major plan which aims to reduce the size of regional countries along ethnic or religious lines. A similar plan has been already formulated for the Islamic world by dominant world powers in the form of the Greater Middle East plan. What is going on under present circumstances in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf and all the way east to Afghanistan and Pakistan is just part of that major plan to reduce the size of regional countries by banking on radical ethnic or religious currents. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that the ongoing developments in Afghanistan are part of a bigger scheme which will affect the entire region in the long run and should be actually considered from this viewpoint. Last but not least, from the viewpoint of Iran’s strategic interests, a powerful government should be in place in Kabul regardless of what person or what political current controls the central government and Iran should not focus on a single person. Keeping Afghanistan within the sphere of Iranian and Islamic civilization should be Iran’s foremost strategic goal with regard to its eastern neighbor and this goal can be only achieved by supporting the establishment of a powerful central government in Kabul.

Pir-Mohammad Mollazehi
Expert on Indian Subcontinent & Middle East Isuues

The post Clash Of Wills Behind Political Crisis In Afghanistan – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(RFE/RL) — Armed separatists in eastern Ukraine have for a second day prevented international observers from reaching the wreckage of a Malaysian airliner that was shot down on July 17, killing all 298 people on board.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said its team of monitors was only allowed to visit a part of the field strewn with debris from the airliner.

Alexander Hug, the chief of the OSCE special monitoring mission to Ukraine, said the team were allowed “to see a bit more” of the sprawling crash site.

Separatists on July 18 blocked the inspectors from visiting the crash site.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Washington was concerned over denial of “proper access” for international investigators and OSCE monitors.

According to the White House, Kerry also told Lavrov that Washington was “very concerned” over reports that the remains of victims and debris from the site of the crash have been removed or tampered with.

That message was later echoed by the U.S. State Department.

Spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted reports about bodies being removed, debris taken away, and potential evidence tampered with.

“This is unacceptable and an affront to all those who lost loved ones and to the dignity the victims deserve,” Psaki said in a statement.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, writing in “The Sunday Times,” said that if it were proven that Ukrainian separatists were behind the downing of the airliner, Russia would be to blame for having destabilized the country.

President Petro Poroshenko said in a statement that he would “not tolerate interference” with the work of international investigators.

Poroshenko also urged the United Nations on July 19 to label rebels fighting his forces in the eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as belonging to “terrorist organisations.”

Earlier on July 19, Ukraine’s government accused separatists of trying to destroy evidence of an international crime “with the help of Russia.”

Kyiv also said separatists moved 38 bodies to a morgue in Donetsk.

A rebel commander told the OSCE team on July 19 that separatists did not touch evidence and had not found the plane’s “black box” flight data recordings.

Accusing Kyiv of the delay, he called on Moscow to help with the recovery of the bodies, which were starting to rot after two days in scorching summer heat.

Ukraine’s counterintelligence chief, meanwhile, said he has “compelling evidence” that the plane was shot down by a BUK-1 antiaircraft missile system operated by a crew of Russian citizens.

Ukraine’s Security Council also said it had no information about any of the black boxes from the Malaysian airliner, and that the flight data boxes had not been handed over to them.

The UN Security Council has unanimously called for a “full, thorough and independent international investigation” and urged all parties to grant investigators access to all parts of the sprawling crash area.

A German government spokesman said Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that an independent, international commission led by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should be granted swift access to the crash site.

In a telephone call on July 19, Merkel also urged Putin to use his influence with the separatists to reach a cease-fire in Ukraine.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said “the world’s eyes will be on Russia to see that she delivers on her obligations.”

The office of the British prime minister said David Cameron and his Dutch counterpart, Mark Rutte, agreed on July 19 that the European Union will have to reevaluate its approach to Russia due to evidence indicating that Ukrainian pro-Russian separatists downed the Malaysian airliner.

Speaking in The Hague, Rutte said that — in what he described as a “very intense” telephone conversation on July 19 — he had told Putin that the Russian leader has one “last chance” to help recover the victims of the downed plane.

Rutte said he was shocked at pictures of “utterly disrespectful behaviour” toward the victims.

Interpol and Europol investigators were traveling to Ukraine on July 19 to help identify crash victims.

A team of experts from Malaysia also arrived in Kyiv on July 19.

‘Wake-Up Call’

On July 18, U.S. President Barack Obama said evidence indicates the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area controlled by Russian-backed separatists.

Obama said the downing should be a “wake-up call for Europe and the world.”

Obama accused Moscow of letting separatists bring weapons into eastern Ukraine from Russia and criticized the Kremlin for failing to stop the violence that made it possible to shoot down the plane.

In telephone communications and online posts, separatist fighters initially bragged about shooting down a plane in the area on July 17 before it became clear that a civilian passenger plane was targeted.

But leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic now deny any involvement and claim a Ukrainian air force jet brought down the plane.

Russia’s Defense Ministry has blamed Ukrainian ground forces, claiming that Russia’s military picked up radar activity from a Ukrainian missile system south of Donetsk when the airliner was brought down.

But Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott has lashed out at Russia for blaming Ukraine.

Abbott said Russia is “substantially to blame” for the problems in Ukraine – and “the idea that Russia can somehow say that none of this has anything to do with them because it happened in Ukrainian airspace, frankly does not stand up to any serious scrutiny.”

The post OSCE Team Denied Full Access To Ukraine Crash Site appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

With significant gaps between the position of parties still remaining, despite serious marathon negotiations unfortunately a final deal by July 20th has proved unreachable, thus necessitating the extension of that deadline, as allowed by the provisions of the Geneva ‘Joint Plan of Action’ singed last November. The big question is, of course, what this means in terms of the negotiation process and the vested interests of both sides, i.e., Iran on the one hand the “P5 +1″ nations on the other hand?

Citing the important progress made as a result of six rounds of intense negotiations during the past several months, Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has raised the importance of reaching “a common understanding” whereby a final comprehensive agreement can be reached in the proximate future. The Geneva agreement’s timeline has been for a “duration of six months” and is “renewable by mutual consent.” Both the US President Barack Obama and John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, have echoed Zarif’s sentiment, much to the chagrin of some hawkish US lawmakers and media pundits, who argue that “time is not on our side” and the sanctions coalition is “dissipating.”

One potential complicating factor is related to the retirement of two key Western negotiators this Fall, namely, Catherine Ashton the European Union’s foreign policy chief who has done an admirable job in steering the negotiations on the side of western powers for a long time, and William Burns, the US Deputy Secretary of State, who until recently played a crucial role outside the media limelight, credited for successful bilateral secret diplomacy with Iran that commenced under the previous Iranian administration last March. The departure of these two seasoned diplomats who are keenly familiar with the nuclear file represents a minor setback, depending of course on the nature of their replacements.

Another problem deals with the US midterm congressional elections and the possibility of the Iran nuclear issue turning into a political football, particularly on the part of hawkish pro-Israel politicians who oppose a reasonable deal with Iran and seek instead an Iranian capitulation. This might complicate the domestic US political scene for the sake of a final deal, even though recent opinion polls indicate the vast majority of Americans favor a deal with Iran. Also, the timely publication of a new report that cites tens of billions of dollars of US trade loss as a result of the Iran sanctions gives the Obama administration a powerful tool to continue to push vigorously for a final agreement, whereby Iran’s market could open up to US business.

The lack of unity among the “5 +1″ nations and the growing US-Russia rift over Ukraine is yet another complicating factor that may grow more pronounced in the coming months, in light of the new tough US and European sanctions slapped on Russia recently, although some European countries have refused to join the anti-Russia efforts out of fear of severe economic backlashes. Lest we forget, both the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers did not bother to join the other foreign ministers at the tale end of the latest round in Vienna, reflecting a lack of unity of will (and purpose) that underscores the volatile East-West relations nowadays.

Rapid changes in the geopolitical environment that forms the backdrop to the nuclear talks should also be viewed as a complicating factor. At the time of Geneva agreement’s signing, the Iran nuclear standoff was one of the top international affairs issues and yet, in the space of precious few months, multiple crises ranging from the Ukraine crisis to the new Iraq crisis to the latest Israel-Hamas war, have taken priority, capable of proving as even greater distractions in the months ahead.

But, while the regional and global other issues press themselves with utmost urgency on the diplomatic machinery east and west, important yet-to-be resolved issues germane to the nuclear talks present proximate challenges that need to be resolved. These can be summed up in one question: what are the terms of extension of the deadline (to late November, 2014)?

From Iran’s vantage point this question raises the issue of further sanctions relief, above and beyond the $4.2 billions that were unfrozen per the terms of Geneva agreement. Naturally, Tehran expects further “confidence-building” gestures by the world powers in terms of unfreezing the blocked Iranian assets in overseas banks, as well as continued oil and gas exports unencumbered by any new limitations.

In return, Iran can promise to continue to adhere to the terms of its obligations under the Geneva agreement, i.e., transparency measures, further cooperation with the IAEA, dilution of its 20% enriched uranium stockpile, etc. As a sign of good-faith negotiation, Tehran may be amenable to take additional transparency steps during the next few months in order to demonstrate its firm commitment to reaching a “win-win” final agreement. The mere fact that Iran has agreed not to install new centrifuges is by itself a major concession by Iran that ought to be kept in proper perspective in the west in terms of its high value, given all the hoopla regarding an Iranian “break-out” capability. Losing sight of this important factor, some western pundits have suggested that the powers ought to make fresh nuclear demands from Iran for the duration of extension, such as a decrease in the overall stock of Iran’s stockpile, which should be rejected by Iran since it lacks proper justification, in light of the significant concessions already made in the Geneva agreement.

One key advantage of the extension is, as clearly stated by foreign minister Zarif, the space for negotiation that is required to tackle in one year issues that have piled up over a decade. This time can be used to address, among other things, the issue of UN sanctions resolution, given the Geneva agreement’s stipulation that all parties are to take “additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step, including…addressing the UN Security Council’s consideration of this matter.” Working with the Security Council to prepare a new Iran resolution in tandem with the breakthrough in the talks is indeed necessary and may prove an important catalyst in melting the resistance of US Congress to go along with a final deal, in light of a recent letter to Obama by hundreds of lawmakers demanding a voice in the talks.

On the other hand, the talks’ extension is not without certain side-effects, particularly for Iran’s half-constructed heavy-water facility in Arak, which was supposed to go online in 2015 prior to signing the Geneva agreement, which stipulation is that Iran refrains from commissioning it or even uploading nuclear fuel at the reactor pending a final agreement. Time is not on the side of this important facility kept in limbo, and the sooner the matter is resolved the better.

Kaveh Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of several books on Iran’s foreign policy. His writings have appeared on several online and print publications, including UN Chronicle, New York Times, Der Tagesspiegel, Middle East Journal, Harvard International Review, and Brown’s Journal of World Affairs, Guardian, Russia Today, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Mediterranean Affairs, Nation, Telos, Der Tageszeit, Hamdard Islamicus, Iranian Journal of International Affairs, Global Dialogue.

The post Extending Iran Nuclear Deadline: Challenges Ahead – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ilaha Mammadli

The first output of the Star refinery of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) will be received by late 2017.

The remarks were made by Azerbaijani Minister of Economy and Industry, Shahin Mustafayev and SOCAR president Rovnag Abdullayev who viewed the site where the plant is being built.

The Star refinery, with the expected production capacity of 10 million tonnes per year, will provide the Petkim petrochemical complex with naphtha, SOCAR said on July 19.

“The major part of the refinery’s products will be sold in Turkey’s domestic market and some part will be exported to South Europe and Mediterranean Sea countries,” the company said.

After commissioning the Star refinery, SOCAR will become the largest company in Turkey’s energy sphere.

The total cost of the project on the construction of SOCAR’s refinery in Turkey exceeds $5 billion. It is among the largest investment projects in Turkey.

SOCAR signed loan agreements totaling $3.29 billion with around 23 financial institutions in the Turkish city of Istanbul on June 6, as part of constructing a new Star refinery in Turkey. The loan package consists of the funds of export-import banks (Spain, Italy, Japan, U.S. and the Republic of Korea), some 16 foreign trade and investment banks, as well as one local bank.

The annual naphtha production volume, used by Petkim as the main raw material, will hit 1.66 million tonnes at the Star refinery.

Along with naphtha, the new oil refinery will produce diesel fuel with ultra-low sulfur to the amount of 5.95 million tonnes, aviation kerosene – 500,000 tonnes, reformate – 500,000 tonnes, petroleum coke – 630,000 tonnes, liquefied gas – 240,000 tonnes, mixed xylene – 415,000 tonnes, olefin LPG – 75,000 tonnes and 145,000 tonnes of sulfur. The refinery will not produce petrol and fuel oil.

Azerbaijan’s minister of economy and SOCAR head also became familiar with the activity of Petkim, as well as its production indices. The guests attended the opening of a plastic packaging factory and became familiar with the construction of a container port there.

The post SOCAR To Become Largest Company In Turkey’s Energy Sphere By 2018 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

If you’ve been hoarding your BitCoins for all this time then perhaps you now have a good reason to spend it all. Dell announced a partnership with Coinbase and is now accepting BitCoin as payment on its website.

The computer tech company joins an ever-increasing group of businesses that includes TigerDirect and Xidax, which accepts BitCoin. The reason for accepting BitCoin as currency, according to the site’s FAQ, states, “BitCoin is a new payment option intended to offer even more flexibility for customers, BitCoing payments can be made easily from anywhere in the world, and offer reduced payment processing costs.”

Those wishing to purchase products can add the item to their cart, fill out shipping details, choose BitCoin as the payment method and, upon submitting the order, will be directed to the Coinbase website. At Coinbase, there will be two payment options to choose from. The first option is to pay directly from a BitCoin wallet through a generated payment address or by scanning a QR code with a smartphone. The second option is to simply pay through a Coinbase account. Once decided, the user will be sent back to the Dell website for order confirmation.

The crypto-currency has had a bit of a tumultuous year. At the beginning of the year it was valued at $800 per BitCoin but the filing for bankruptcy protection by MtGox had driven the value down to $528. The current value of the currency, according to Coinbase’s prices that is now shown in Google searches, is at $630.05 at the time of publication.

The post Dell Accepting Bitcoin As Payment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Australian Senate has voted to scrap the controversial two-year old carbon emission tax, signaling a major victory for Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Reaching the national carbon reduction goals remains in question.

Carbon emission has been a long-running debate among politicians. The Liberals claim it penalizes business, while the Labor Party says it helps combat climate change.

In the 2013 elections Prime Minister Tony Abbott who heads the Liberal-Nationals coalition put forward repealing the carbon emission tax as a central aim of his government.

In exchange he promised to replace the tax with a government fund of AUS$2.55 billion through which industries will be paid to reduce emissions and use cleaner energy.

On Thursday the Australian Senate voted 39 to 32 to end the carbon emission tax. Introduced in July 2012, it charged 348 major polluters US $22.60 for every ton of greenhouse gases they produce.

Even though the Abbott coalition does not hold a majority in the Senate the repeal was achieved with the support of the Palmer United Party headed by Australian mining tycoon Clive Palmer.

Christine Milne, the leader of Greens, who together with Labor voted against, described the vote as an “appalling day for Australia.”

The repeal was fiercely opposed by the Labor and Greens Parties, who stated the vote, spoils the international reputation of Australia.

“This is an appalling day for Australia when a government, rather than lead in the face of what the world is facing up to … is determined to stick with the past,” Reuters quotes Christine Milne.

Among the developed countries Australia produces the largest volumes of greenhouse gas per capita. In 2000 the country promised to reduce carbon dioxide output by 5 percent by 2020.

After the tax was introduced a wave of protests swept across Australia as opponents complained of lost jobs and energy price rises.

The post Australia Abolishes Controversial Carbon Tax appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Anthony Rusonik

About 44 years ago, when Syrian and Iraqi forces entered Jordan to assist Palestinian factions in an effort to topple King Hussein, Israel declared the Hashemite kingdom and its territorial integrity a vital interest. Yitzhak Rabin dispatched Israeli armor to the border, and Israeli jets buzzed Syrian tanks inside Jordanian territory. Whether causal or not, Syrian and Iraqi forces withdrew days later, and the Hashemite reign has endured in Jordan since the defeat of Black September.

Today, though Israel is governed by Revisionist Zionists quite unlike Rabin, core interests and patterns endure in the region amid the apparent chaos. In response to the ISIS Blitzkrieg through Iraq and Syria, Israel Foreign Minister Lieberman made it official in dialogue with his German counterpart and sole European ally of strategic importance: Israel would not allow ISIS to threaten Jordan and the stable buffer it provides from regional strife.

It is also no coincidence that the Hashemite monarchy and their royal counterparts in Saudi Arabia are the main Sunni conservative survivors after the flames of the Arab Spring died in the current Arab winter.

Whether endless civil war in Syria, or sectarian Sunni-Shia bloodshed in Syria and Iraq, the Arab world is in crisis such that the very foundation of the Arab state system under Sykes-Picot is now in question.

On Israel’s own doorstep, radical Islam in the form of Hamas has co-opted the secular government of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank. The murder of three Israeli teens and vigilante retribution is but one more contribution to the Mideast powder keg, as is ‘spillage’ from the Syrian civil war onto the Golan Heights and into Turkey and Lebanon.

Again, however, old patterns endure upon closer examination. Egypt’s overthrow of Mubarak gave rise to apparent radical Islam in Morsi. Yet from the very beginning, Morsi proved less radical than predicted as he brokered the Israeli-Gaza ceasefire. In the end, Morsi became a footnote.

If the interests of regional actors are constant and their behavior more predictable than it may seem, then one must consider that it is an outside force – the United States – that has lost direction and leadership in the region. It is this disengagement that has allowed the region to destabilize.

The premature US withdrawal from the Iraqi quagmire is an indisputable accelerant to the current ISIS terror. Elsewhere, the questionable American abandonment of Mubarak, followed by Washington’s determination to reinstate Morsi, and now the threats to Al-Sisi to withhold support has transformed the most natural of US allies such that it now is engaging in nervous flirtations with an eager Russia.

President Obama’s compromised position in Egypt was preceded by a classic diplomatic defeat at Putin’s hands in Syria. In the one moment where Obama recognized the legitimate use of force to punish Syria’s use of chemical weapons, Putin defused the crisis with an offer to negotiate and oversee Syrian chemical weapons destruction from the comfort of Moscow’s port at Latakia.

The Turks, too, remain miffed at Obama’s inaction on Syria and now in Iraq, with the one ironic consequence that Erdogan has found it in Ankara’s interests to warm up to Israel in order to contain Damascus. Here again, a return to an old pattern.

In a double irony, Obama’s protracted diplomacy with Syria’s Iranian sponsor over nuclear weapons development has opened a rare channel of common interest between Tehran and Washington to stop ISIS’ slaughter of the Shia and protect America’s man in Baghdad, Al-Maliki.

One has to return to the early 1970s to find this level of US-Iranian cooperation. So, if this were not ironic enough, then consider that Tehran and Jerusalem also share a common interest now in containing ISIS at the Jordanian and Syrian borders, just as they did against Black September.

Alliances may change, religious and ideological rhetoric may change, but the interests of the ethno-nationalist state seldom do.

The final irony? Where this article began by noting Israel’s re-commitment to Jordan’s territorial integrity, it ends with the observation that the US has not matched the Israeli position. Washington has provided no public assurances to Amman against ISIS. As reported by the The Guardian, Obama recognized the threat in public on June 22, but declined to provide US commitments.

If there has been one development some Western analysts might consider to be positive, then it’s the apparent emergence of a stable and pro-Western Kurdish de facto state in northern Iraq. Here again, however, Obama and Kerry refused to back a horse that has wanted inside Washington’s stable. Instead, they continued to push for a ‘whole’ Iraq.

If amid the chaos and challenges to the Arab state system, the Arab world seeks to right itself as per old patterns of alliance and balance diplomacy, the vacuum that perpetuates the crisis is a lack of American leadership. Obama may not have said so, but actors in the region are now behaving as though the US no longer considers the Middle East a vital interest.

Anthony Rusonik is a contributor to Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this article first appeared.

The post Middle East Patterns Endure As US Steps Back – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Clare Hogan

Developed nations have a long history of exploiting indigenous populations for their own personal benefit. Whereas the ill treatment was once centered on acquiring land and natural resources, the latest developments suggest a new form of abuse: biopiracy. News of the exploitation of an Ecuadorian indigenous group at the hands of a coalition of American-based organizations has recently come to light. Though the intricate details have yet to be fully divulged, it was discovered that U.S.-based Coriell Medical Institute and Harvard University colluded with oil-drilling company Maxus Energy Corporation in the drawing of thousands of blood samples from the native Huaorani tribe in Ecuador. The real depravity of this issue lies in the way in which the medical samples were obtained. Fewer than 20 percent of the participants signed an authorization for the procedure, and all were further under the impression that their blood was being extracted to conduct personal medical examinations.[1] However, tribe members never received any results. Instead, these DNA samples were sold to medical labs in eight different countries, including the Harvard University Medical School in the United States, generating profits for the Coriell Institute.[2]

The Facts

From 1990 to 1991, it is estimated that as many as 3,500 blood samples were drawn from 600 Huaorani members. This evidence confirms that several pints of blood must have been obtained from each individual.[3] Along with the blood, tissue samples were also collected, providing the Coriell Institute with a total of 36 full DNA samples and seven cell lines to use for research and sale.[4] Between 1990 and 2012, 31 research papers based on the collected data were written, all of which were authored without the consent of the Huaorani; necessary royalties for the essays’ commercial use were also never paid to the tribe.[5] Medical research labs in the United States and other countries, such as Singapore, Japan, Italy, India, Germany, Brazil, and Canada, also bought the Huaorani DNA samples for further medical experimentation. Many of these global scientists believe that Huaorani members could possess an auspicious genetic mutation which affords them immunity to certain diseases like hepatitis, though this theory has yet to be scientifically proven.[6]

The Morality of Medicine

If this supposed biological immunity is actually a reality, then the research would result in revolutionary medical advancements – but at what cost? Lawless actions committed in the name of medicine are not morally justified, and should not be viewed as such when they involve large foreign corporations exploiting indigenous populations.

Although not enforced in this particular situation, Ecuador does have laws against biopiracy that are in place to deter this exact behavior. Article 66 (3)(d) of Ecuador’s Constitution explicitly “prohibits ‘the use of genetic material and scientific experimentation that undermines human rights.’”[7]Looking closely at the facts of the case, it is evident that the Coriell Institute ultimately stole DNA, thus irrefutably violating the Huaorani’s basic human rights.

Biopirating the Huaorani

Biopiracy, also known as bioprospecting, is legally defined as “failing to obtain permission to collect samples, failing to disclose one’s motivations in collecting samples, failing to follow national laws, or failing to follow [a] company’s self-regulatory guidelines.”[8] Usually, the term is more commonly used to refer to the theft or “privatization of biological materials,” such as endemic vegetation. In this scenario, however, the expression is very fitting.[9] In fact, the actions of the Coriell Institute could warrant the creation of a new sub-genre known as genetic biopiracy.

In recent years, biopiracy has become an increasingly prominent issue in Latin America. In many cases, it is fiscally impossible for indigenous communities to combat the encroachments of large, affluent corporations, and thus, indigenous groups are left vulnerable to exploitation as a result of their comparative lack of resources. Foreign pharmaceutical companies, for example, travel to Latin America in search of potential medicinal components and oftentimes overpower indigenous objections because they can afford the expensive patents and necessary extraction procedures that indigenous populations cannot.[10] Additionally, if not reported properly, these transgressions can be overlooked by a country’s national government, and native populations are consequently left without adequate legal representation.

Contrarily, genetic biopiracy is a result of other injustices. During 1990-1991, when the offenses in Ecuador occurred, a substantial language barrier undoubtedly existed between the Huaorani tribe and English-speaking doctors who were drawing their blood. Moreover, since the offense took place in the remote Amazonian region where the Huaorani live, it is most likely that correspondence between the Ecuadorian government and Coriell Institute was close to nonexistent. Therefore, the Huaorani had little protection from the deceit-filled advancements of Coriell. At that point in time, what reasons would they have had to distrust medical officials offering regular check-up exams? The Coriell Institute took advantage of this disconnect, and unfortunately, the true nature of its actions was not fully recognized until years later when Huaorani and Ecuadorian officials noticed the suspicious absence of any test results. The dishonesty surrounding the retrieval of this medical material is enough to warrant the institute’s actions as an egregiously unethical violation of human rights.

Conclusion

Coriell’s infringement of human rights is not completely unilateral. Maxus Energy Corporation, an oil-drilling company that had been active in Ecuador since 1970, also played a minor role in the cover-up of this genetic biopiracy, as did the Harvard University Medical School. Regrettably, the details of the relationship between these three entities are largely unknown. However, considering the drilling company’s extended presence in the Amazonian region, one might speculate that Coriell bribed company officials to stay silent on the issue. In contrast, Harvard’s role is perhaps more immoral as it appears that biopiracy was its direct intention. In fact, it was confirmed that the doctors who drew the blood samples from the Huaorani were Harvard medical associates who had a discreet contract with Coriell, yet the University has issued no public statements.

The United States Embassy conveniently denies having any previous knowledge of Coriell’s actions, and details have now been buried for more than two decades, making any legal response from Ecuador that much harder to implement.[11] President Correa of Ecuador declared in a recent radio broadcast that he plans to take legal action against the American companies by issuing a call for “inter-American and international regulation to stop this kind of genetic ‘piracy.’”[12] Only time will tell if lawful retribution will be possible for Ecuador to attain, especially because there are no legal grounds on which to sue Coriell, Harvard, and Maxus at the United States federal level.[13] Moreover, it is unclear what the United States’ response will be, for it is the American judiciary’s decision to either hold the corporations responsible for their actions or allow them to get away with genetic biopiracy. Judging from its former negligence to address the matter, one can presume that the United States will most likely choose the latter, effectively endorsing such exploitation of the Huaorani and indigenous groups.

Consequently, President Correa and Ecuadorian legal officials will have to search for other legal pathways to help right this grievous human rights violation. Hopefully action will be possible through an international court; however, if the conflict evolves into a contest of resources between the Huaorani and the U.S. coalition, then the decade-old abuse may never be justly rectified.

Clare Hogan, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

References

[1] Mole, Beth Marie. “Bad Blood: US Scientists struggle to complete studies in Ecuador in the wake of biopiracy accusations”, The Scientist. February 20, 2013.

[2] AFP, “US lab ‘sold indigenous blood’: Ecuador”, Business Standard. June 28, 2014.

[3] Ocean, Max. “US Scientists, Oil Giant Stole Indigenous Blood: for years, scientists working with Maxus Energy took blood samples from hundreds of Amazonian tribal members”, Intercontinental Cry Magazine, June 19, 2014.

[4] Mole, Beth Marie

[5] Latino Daily News, “Ecuador to take legal action against using Indian blood for research”, Hispanically Speaking News, June 15, 2014.

[6] Business Standard.

[7] Mole, Beth Marie.

[8] Landon, Amanda J. “Bioprospecting and Biopiracy in Latin America: The Case of Maca in Peru”, University of Nebraska Digital Commons, Department of Anthropology.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ocean, Max.

[12] Hispanically Speaking News.

[13] France-Presse, Agence. “Ecuador: US scientists unethically sold blood”, ChinaDaily USA, June 18, 2014.

The post Biopiracy: The New Tyrant Of The Developing World – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Raul Castro Ruz

Her Excellency Mrs. Dilma Rousseff, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil,

Esteemed comrade Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China,

His Excellency Luis Guillermo Solis, President Pro Tempore of Celac,
Esteemed Heads of State and Government,

I wish to thank the authorities and people of Brazil for their warm welcome and the excellent facilities made available to us all.
I also wish to express my appreciation to President Xi Jinping for making this meeting possible, and for being with us here today. This is strong proof of our countries’ political will to consolidate the process of dialogue and cooperation between China and the Latin American and Caribbean region.

I attach the greatest importance to the five proposals submitted a few minutes ago by Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China.

The decision made by the 2nd Celac Summit held in La Habana, on January 28-29, 2014, to install the Celac-China Forum has added practical sense to the efforts of the Latin American and Caribbean region and China to tackle together the challenging conditions prevailing in the world today and to promote our common development.

Expanding our relations will allow our countries to undertake a regular bilateral dialogue on crucial international issues as well as to defend the interests of the South while advancing with ambitious projects in the areas of cooperation, trade, investments and financial relations with a major component of science, technology and innovation, and a special emphasis on the creation of human resources.

The Declaration of Fortaleza, adopted at the recent summit of the group made up by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, is of paramount importance to us all. We welcome the group’s commitment to work for an equitable and fair international order based on the UN Charter as well as its decision to encourage cooperation, solidarity, multilateralism, peace, security, economic and social progress and sustainable development focused on the eradication of poverty.

The establishment of a New Development Bank and of an Emergency Reserve Fund stands out as a significant contribution towards a more inclusive international financial system.
The economic and social development of the Latin American an d Caribbean region and China builds extraordinary potential to foster mutually advantageous relations. To attain this objective, special attention should be paid to the sister Caribbean nations. The limited scale of their economies and their particular vulnerabilities, the characteristics of their productive and exporting platform, and the devastating effects of the hurricanes that usually hit several of them at the same time, plus the increasing threat of climate change make it imperative that these countries −most of them unfairly considered of middle-size income− receive cooperation, trade and investments on preferential terms, both from Latin America and from China.
Haiti was the birthplace of the first victorious Revolution commanded by slaves in the history of mankind, the same that later contributed to Latin American independence. Now, we all feel it is our inescapable duty to contribute to its development and to help it leave behind the historical consequences of plundering and natural disasters.

The great Asian nation is today the world second largest economy and the main exporter of merchandise. Its sound economic growth has favored an increase in the prices of raw materials and exports from several Latin American and Caribbean economies. Today, China receives 9 percent of the region’s exports and it is the source of 14 percent of its imports.

The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, which hold a large proportion of the world mineral reserves, the second oil reserves and one-third of the fresh-water reserves, are facing the challenge of working toward the industrialization of our natural and farm resources, of raising and diversifying our exports, especially those with higher aggregated value, and of keeping our trade balance leveled off. In this context, our countries’ relations with the People’s Republic of China can play a major role.

As far as we are concerned, more than five decades of exchanges with China have facilitated the full development of an exemplary relationship that has successfully passed the test of time. The close friendly relations of our two nations has unquestionably reflected on the numerous trade and cooperation projects developed, a good number of them with remarkable social impact.

Today, may we invite you to continue working together to promote relations among our countries based on respect and equality, and for the common good.

Thank you.

The post Remarks Of Raul Castro Ruz At Meeting Of Leaders Of China, Latin American and The Caribbean Brasilia appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(RFE/RL) — A nuclear watchdog says Iran has eliminated its most-sensitive stockpile of enriched uranium gas as pledged under a temporary nuclear deal signed with six world powers last year.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which works with the UN on nuclear issues, wrote in a report that Iran met the terms of the agreement, which was to expire on July 20 but was extended last week until November.

Tehran was required to stop enriching uranium gas to 20 percent and had to dilute or convert its remaining stockpile of the material, which the IAEA said in its report it has done.

Iran and China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France, and the United States failed last week in Vienna to meet the deadline for a final agreement on Iran’s controversial nuclear program.

Iran claims its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

The post Iran Eliminates Highly-Enriched Uranium Under Nuclear Deal appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A short-lived “humanitarian truce” between Tel Aviv and Hamas was broken Sunday afternoon with the resumption of fighting in the neighborhood of Shejaya, according to Agence France Presse.

In less than an hour after the so-called ceasefire was implemented, Israel’s military said that its personnel were shot at in Shejaya, and thus resumed fighting accordingly.

Hamas did not provide any immediate comment regarding the Israeli allegation.

The ceasefire, facilitated as requested from the International Committee of the Red Cross, was set to last from 1:30-3:30 pm in the Shejaya neighborhood. Both sides confirmed that they had accepted the request.

“The ICRC contacted (us) and offered to broker a three-hour humanitarian truce to enable ambulances to evacuate the dead and wounded and Hamas accepted it,” spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in a statement, as reported by AFP.

Abu Zuhri also noted that Tel Aviv initially refused the ceasefire, but then agreed to a shortened truce (i.e. a two-hour rather than a three-hour ceasefire).

ICRC, however, refused to confirm or deny the Hamas report to AFP, saying only: “We have been making every effort to ensure ways to evacuate the dead and the wounded.”

More than 50 Palestinians have been killed in Shejaya, according to AFP’s health officials’ sources, and over 400 have been killed throughout the Strip. Thousands have been wounded.

Emergency services have not been able to access areas to properly care for the wounded, or even take care of the dead bodies covering the streets, due to the intensity of the bombardment on the Strip, according to an AFP correspondent.

The post Israeli Troops, Hamas Break Humanitarian Ceasefire appeared first on Eurasia Review.